Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Read the Third time, and passed

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (BARROW) [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 23 June at Seven o'clock.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 23 June.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to finish this first, please. I propose to put together the Questions on Bills Nos. 1 to 5.

Miss Widdecombe: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

YORK CITY COUNCIL. BILL [Lords] (By Order)

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL ( By Order)

FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE TOWN MOOR BILL [Lords] ( By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 23 June.

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question 11 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 23 June at Seven o'clock.

PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 23 June.

NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Wednesday 22 June at Seven o'clock.

Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Redmond: Given that the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill was due to be debated on 15 June and that, so far as this House is concerned, Wednesday has not existed, and will never exist, why has the business for that day been brought back on to the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: It has been brought back because the Chairman of Ways and Means has named Wednesday 22 June for that debate.

Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Miss Widdecombe: On the Southern Water Authority Bill, which you called first, I twice shouted "Object," but it appears that you did not hear me.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I did not. The hon. Lady must make her objections very clearly. I did not hear the hon. Lady's objection, and I was listening carefully. My recollection is that the hon. Lady said "Object" after I had moved on to the next Bill.

Mr. Ian Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many of my hon. Friends heard my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) say "Object". I fully understand that you did not hear, but, as it is within the recollection of many Conservative Members that my hon. Friend did say "Object," would it not be possible for you to reconsider the matter?

Mr. Speaker: As a matter of chivalry, I will accept the objection, but I say to the hon. Lady and to the whole House that it is helpful to the Chair for objections to be made clearly. I shall put the Question again.

SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday 23 June.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) rose, I objected to the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill as well, and I ask you to take that objection into account, too.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that cannot be taken into account, because that is a case of a day named by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Oral Answers to Questions

NATIONAL FINANCE

Income and Wealth Distribution

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on income and wealth distribution in the light of the Church of Scotland study entitled "Just Sharing", a copy of which has been sent to him.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Major): The Government's policy is to create the conditions in which everybody can increase their incomes and acquire wealth.

Mr. Clarke: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer not replying to this question himself because he knows that the facts revealed in "Just Sharing" show that there is a growing and worsening problem of poverty? Does the Minister accept that recent information has made it clear that the consequences for 300,000 children losing their school meals are quite dire? Will the Minister encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer to set aside his complacency and respond to the pleas of the Churches and many others to give priority to the restoration of the £800 million that he raided from the social security budget, with dire consequences for the under-privileged?

Mr. Major: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he is well aware, compensation for the loss of free school meals was included in family credit at the time of the reforms.

Mr. Forth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Scots already enjoy a disproportionate amount of the wealth of the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that, for example, health expenditure in Scotland is 25 per cent. per head higher than in England? Is he also aware that the Scots enjoy the second highest average earnings in the United Kingdom, apart from London and the south-east? Will he report those facts to the Church of Scotland when making his balanced response to its report?

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend makes his points entirely clearly and accurately. I am sure that the Church of Scotland will note his comments. It is the case that in its share of public expenditure and in its economic performance at the moment, Scotland is doing extremely well.

Mr. Worthington: Is it not disgraceful, given the Chancellor of the Exchequer's objectives of wanting all to share in the wealth of the country, that if someone with a wife and two children aged eight and 11 had an increase in income from £60 to £150 a week he would be able to retain only £12?

Mr. Major: As a result of my right hon. Friend's tax changes in this and previous Budgets it is undoubtedly the fact that at all levels of income there is a higher level of net disposable income than before my right hon. Friend became Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question shows that the Opposition parties are utterly obsessed with the distribution of wealth, that they have no concern for the creation of wealth, and that all their policies are designed to destroy the creation of wealth?

Mr. Major: If one looks at the record it is clear that that has certainly been the practical effect of policies that the Opposition have put into practice when in government. The distribution of wealth is legitimately a matter for debate. It is regrettable that "Just Sharing" simply refers to the distribution of wealth, not to the creation of it.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Given the Government's complacent and so far wholly shameful response to the pleas of the Churches on poverty and social justice, will the

Minister tell the Churches how he justifies a state charity social fund which transfers the responsibility or relieving poverty from Ministers to charities and voluntary organisations, while at the same time someone in the top 1 per cent. with an income above £50,000 a year has gained on average a total of £110,000 in tax cuts since 1979? Does he agree that the real motto of this Government is not, as they would like us to believe, "God helps those who help themselves", but, as Ministers know very well, "God helps those whom he has already helped" even at the expense of fairness to the rest of the community?

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is misleading in a number of his remarks. Before we can share any wealth, it must be created. It is precisely because of our success in creating wealth in this country that this year we are spending about £481½ billion on social security benefits. With regard to the distribution of wealth, it is a matter of fact that the top 1 per cent. have a noticeably smaller share of the total wealth in this country today than a few years ago.

Mr. Burns: With regard to the study by the Church of Scotland, does my right hon. Friend accept that the Church should address itself to religious matters instead of interfering in the economy? Does he also accept that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is better trained and far more successful in handling that kind of thing than is the Church?

Mr. Major: I certainly echo the points that my hon. Friend has made about the success of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a matter of record that "Just Sharing" concentrates substantially on distribution, although, of course, I must state that it is also concerned with ethical and moral questions.

Top Incomes

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the gross pre-tax incomes of the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers have risen from 1978–79 to 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): Gross incomes of the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers rose by about 43 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1987–88.

Mr. Nellist: Given that the real rise in pre-tax incomes among the rest of the population was less than half that, does that not show that when the Chancellor claims that cutting the rate for the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers produces more tax, that is merely a by-product of the rich getting richer over the past nine years compared with the rest of the population? For example, a person with an income of £50,000 per year has gained tax cuts of £500 per week since 1979, whereas a couple on half average earnings of £120 a week will be paying £4 per week more after tax and national insurance are taken into account. Is that not poverty in the midst of conspicuous abundance?

Mr. Lamont: The premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is wrong. Although the share of pre-tax gross incomes among the top 5 per cent. has increased two percentage points, their contribution to the Inland Revenue tax take has increased by four percentage points, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong. He seems to believe that


there is something surprising about the fact that when one gives people incentives, their salaries increase. That is exactly what we expect and it is not in any way surprising. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that 5 million taxpayers on less than half average earnings have enjoyed a 22 per cent. reduction in their tax burden as a result of the Budget.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is not my right hon. Friend's response and the figures that he used of particular interest, because they put the final nail in the coffin of the suggestion that sky-high taxation raises extra revenue for the Exchequer?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. The tax take from the top 5 per cent. has increased by one third in real percentage terms. That is the overall increase in the whole take of the Inland Revenue, and that result is of benefit to the whole country.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is being unusually brazen with the House this afternoon. He says that the wealthiest 5 per cent. of people in our society have benefited to the extent of 43 per cent. in real terms over the period that this Government have been in office. I do not blame him for neglecting to explain —but I invite him to do so now —why the Government felt it necessary to give that most privileged of groups an additional £3 billion in tax cuts on top of what they have already received in this year's Budget.

Mr. Lamont: The object of tax cuts is to improve the performance of the economy. The overwhelming evidence is that they have achieved precisely that.

Mr. Boswell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there was not very much point in earning an extra £1 when one needed to earn an extra £50 to keep that pound? In those circumstances it would have been far better to go to a Socialist country, such as New Zealand, with a top tax rate of about one third, as applied under the previous Labour Administration.

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right; and he might have added that post-tax real income at all multiples of earnings in this country has increased dramatically under this Government, whereas for some people, especially the lower paid, it declined under the previous Labour Government. The Opposition may believe that there is some point in Socialism that makes people poorer, but most find that concept rather puzzling.

Exchange Rate

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement regarding the rise in the deutschmark-pound sterling exchange rate since the beginning of 1988 and its effects on British industry.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The deutschmark—sterling exchange rate rose from 2·96 at the start of 1988 to a peak of 3·19 on 16 May, and has since fallen to 3·13. Over the period as a whole it has risen by a little over 5 per cent.

Mr. Martlew: Will the Chancellor return to the policy, which he held before March this year, of keeping within the DM2.80 to DM3 bracket? Does he not realise that the high value of the pound is destroying British industry's

ability to export, and British tourism by reducing the number of people visiting this country? Does he recall that when a similar policy of high exchange and high interest rates was followed between 1980 and 1981 it destroyed 20 per cent. of British industry? Will the Chancellor operate an exchange rate policy in which he believes, instead of one based on the prejudice of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is making a great deal out of a small change in the exchange rate. Over the whole of the period since 1981 our share of world trade in manufactured goods has held steady, after decades of decline. Therefore, our exporters are doing well and will continue to do well. What they want to see is a reasonable degree of stability in the exchange rate. What they do not want to see—certainly what the economy does not want —is a steady depreciation of sterling, which is the only exchange rate policy of the Opposition.

Mr. Oppenheim: Is it not true that sterling has depreciated against the deutschmark by about 20 per cent. over the past three years and by about 60 per cent. since 1980? Is it not also true that the two countries with the most steadily increasing currencies since the war—Germany and Japan—have also been the most successful industrially?

Mr. Lawson: It is true that the more successful a country's economy is, the greater is the likelihood that its exchange rate will appreciate over a period of time.

Mr. Beith: How is the Chancellor getting on with his task of advising the Prime Minister on when the time will be right for Britain to join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS? Does he update her on whether the time is right on a weekly or monthly basis? Will he tell her that industry wants the stability, particularly in relation to the deutschmark, that the EMS would provide?

Mr. Lawson: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's point, which he has made on many occasions. The Government's policy on that issue remains the policy that they have stated on many occasions.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that industry and commerce are basically in favour of stable exchange rates and that, while his skilful use of interest rate changes during the past three months has achieved a fair measure of stability, that must remain a second-best alternative to full membership of the EMS?

Mr. Lawson: Clearly, there is a strong case to be made for membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS, and the Government agree that Britain should join. The question is when? The Government have not yet reached the conclusion that the right time has arrived.
On the substantive point, my hon. Friend is right in saying that swings in the exchange rate are not helpful to industry to the economy or to the battle against inflation. Nor, I am glad to say, have we seen wild swings in the exchange rate, certainly not the sterling exchange rate, over recent years.

Mr. John Smith: Why did the Chancellor not answer that part of the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) that asked for his opinion on the effect of the exchange rate on British industry? Is not the exchange rate at its present level deeply harmful to the competitive prospects of British industry, as the leaders of


industry constantly point out? Does the Chancellor recall that he once had a policy of shadowing the deutschmark at DM3 to the pound before the Prime Minister wrecked his policy? Has he seen the revision in the current account balance of payments figures, which shows that they were under-estimated for the first quarter by £900 million, showing a deficit of £2·8 billion, which, annualised, would be £11·2 billion as against a Budget prediction of £4 billion? What will he do about Britain's balance of payments crisis?

Mr. Lawson: There is no balance of payments crisis. The current account of the balance of payments inevitably fluctuates over time, and the only need for a balance is over a long period, not in any particular year. Over the previous eight years we have had a cumulative current account surplus of over £21 billion. This year I forecast a deficit of £4 billion. I have seen the revision, and there may be further revisions, as there frequently are. It is now likely that the deficit for this year will be larger—I cannot say how much larger—than I forecast at the time of the Budget, but there is no hint of a crisis, and that is fully understood by the markets and by those who are economically literate.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Wolfson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the fall in long-term unemployment in the year to January 1988.

Mr. Major: Long-term unemployment fell by 234,000 in the year to January 1988, and by a further 71,000 between January and April. The fall over the last year is the largest on record, and it has happened in all regions.

Mr. Wolfson: I welcome that positive news, but will my right hon. Friend enlarge on it and tell us a little more about the reflection of those figures in the regions of most persistent and difficult long-term unemployment?

Mr. Major: One of the attractive features of the fall in unemployment over the past 22 months has been the dramatic fall in the north-west, the north, Yorkshire and Humberside. That is particularly true of long-term unemployment, which has fallen by 21·9 per cent. in the north-west, 19·1 per cent. in the north, 22·6 per cent. in Wales and 15·6 per cent. in Scotland.

Mr. Winnick: How much longer will we have to wait before unemployment is on the same scale as in May 1979?

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman may be drawing a distinction between the number of people who were registered as unemployed and the number who were in jobs that genuinely did not exist when the Labour Government were in office.

Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an obvious answer to all those who want to know how unemployment has fallen? They should visit the former unemployment black spot of Corby, where unemployment has been dropping sensationally and will continue to do so.

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is noticeable that although throughout the last election the Opposition claimed that unemployment was about to rise, since then it has fallen by half a million.

Department Manpower

Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many officials of his Department are responsible for monitoring (a) the social security budget, and (b) other Department of Health and Social Security services.

Mr. Major: There are eight officials currently employed in the Treasury who deal with the social security budget, and 16 officials who deal with other Department of Health and Social Security expenditure.

Ms. Armstrong: Have those officials informed the Chancellor that Britain spends less per head of population than any other European Community country? Are they also advising him how much he will be able to put into the National Health Service? May we have an assurance that he will fight to ensure that we receive adequate and proper funding for the National Health Service in the next round?

Mr. Major: Health Service expenditure for 1988–89 is now £22½ billion, and there will be 9 per cent. more cash in the Health Service this year than last year. That is a dramatic increase.

Mr McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend have a word with one of the officials dealing with the health budget in an endeavour to confirm that if the Government have it in mind to bring forward additional resources for health care, one of the least efficient ways of doing so would be to introduce tax relief against private health insurance, as proposed in certain quarters? We should remember that 5 million people and their employers already hold health care policies without such an inducement.

Mr. Major: Health resources will be discussed in the public expenditure round in the autumn.
In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I have no intention of commenting on such a speculation.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Chief Secretary tell the House whether those officials have looked into the policy of health authorities that close down small hospitals on the basis that health care will be available in the private sector —albeit funded to a large extent by social security—and, when challenged, say that they have no obligation to take into account public expenditure on that social security? Will he look into the matter urgently?

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman's substantive point is more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services than for me. The primary responsibility of the officials of my Department is to discuss with, and advise, me on the level of resources that should go into the health budget.

Job Creation

Mr. McLoughlin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new jobs have been created in the economy since 1983.

Mr. Lawson: Since 1983 nearly 1¾ million new jobs have been created, more than in the whole of the rest of the European Community put together.

Mr. McLoughlin: I welcome that very encouraging news. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the


ingredients that the economy requires to create so many new jobs? Is it not a fact that more jobs have been created in the United Kingdom than in the rest of Europe put together? A job is a job, regardless of how the Opposition may denigrate them, whether part-time or full-time. Those jobs are providing employment for the people of this country.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right to be encouraged by the dynamism that the economy has shown in a number of respects, not least through the creation of new jobs, many of which have been created by the birth, in increasing numbers, of new companies. The view used to he that the only way that the economy could expand was by increasing the Budget deficit, but we have demonstrated that there can be unparalleled growth by reducing and eliminating altogether the Budget deficit. That has been the reason for the success of the enterprise culture, for tax reductions and reform, trade union law reform and all the other reforms on the so-called supply side of the economy that have enabled the economy to perform more freely and to work better.

Mr. Ashley: As it is the Government's policy to force down wages as low as possible, can the Chancellor tell us how many of these jobs attract lower wages than were previously paid, on average?

Mr. Lawson: If it were the Government's policy to force down wages as low as possible, which it is not, we are being notably unsuccessful.

Mr. Sumberg: As the north-west of England has shown one of the biggest increases in new jobs and the biggest falls in long-term unemployment, does it not prove that the old north-south divide under Labour is now a north-west success under the Conservatives? [Interruption.]

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. Despite the ignorant jeers of the Opposition, one of the most encouraging factors about the changes in unemployment and employment over the past few years is the way in which unemployment has been falling and jobs have been growing in every region of the country.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Chancellor's statement about the large number of new jobs. Did he notice that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury did not mention Northern Ireland when he referred to the regions where there is long-term unemployment? May we be assured that we shall enjoy some of these benefits referred to, especially in the light of Northern Ireland's low-wage economy, which does not attract new jobs?

Mr. Lawson: Over the past year there has been a drop of about 5 per cent. in the number of long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, I fully understand the very considerable difficulties in the Province, partly as a result of the peculiar and unsatisfactory conditions that prevail there and partly because there is still an excessive dependence on older industries. We are seeing a change in the industrial structure of Northern Ireland, which is very important for the future of new jobs there.

Wage Settlements

Mr. Cran: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of wage rate settlements for the last 12 months for which figures are available and what were the figures for the preceding 12 months; and what is the underlying trend.

Mr. Norman Lamont: CBI data show that settlements in manufacturing industry in the 12 months to the first quarter of this year averaged 5½ per cent., the same as in the comparable period last year. The corresponding figures for services are 6½ and 6 per cent.

Mr. Cran: Will my right lion. Friend say what advice he has given or that he is prepared to give now to companies and to work forces to make sure that wage negotiations do not lead to a deterioration in unit labour costs, which is a far more important concept than wage levels? Does he agree that managers are part of the work force and that we shall be looking to them for considerable powers of leadership to make sure that the snouts do not dig too deeply into the pig trough?

Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for Conservative Members to pass around newspaper cuttings with a clear view to conducting a stunt in a few minutes' time?

Mr. Speaker: Order. A hypothetical stunt, I think.

Mr. Lamont: In response to my hon. Friend's question, my advice to firms is to remind them that the Government intend to pursue a firm anti-inflation policy. Obviously, it is possible for excessive wage or salary increases to result in people being priced out of jobs. It is the responsibility of management to ensure that companies can afford the deals that are done, and that they apply to all people within the company.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that, despite the figures for wage settlements that he has just mentioned, many workers still have to live on unacceptably low wages? Why do the Government not do something to ensure that those people get a fair share of the prosperity that the Government claim exists at present? Why do they not lend their support to the calls for a national minimum wage? Is it not time that we had one?

Mr. Lamont: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that a national minimum wage would mean fewer jobs available for the low paid and would be counter-productive. I would take much more seriously the hon. Gentleman's concern about the lower paid if the record of the Labour party in terms of the lower paid had been better, but many of the lower paid have done far better under this Government and have had substantial increases in their take-home pay.

Mr. John Townend: To what extent has the increase in public sector pay been covered by increases in productivity? As a higher proportion of private sector pay is covered by productivity gains, particularly in manufacturing industry, does my right hon. Friend agree that this year inflationary pressures will come more from the public sector than from the private sector?

Mr. Lamont: The Government have it very much in mind that pay settlements in the public sector must reflect what is affordable. My hon. Friend may know that in


1986–87, the last year for which figures are available, earnings in the public sector rose by less than in the private sector. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the dramatic increase in productivity, because that meant that the private sector could afford more generous wage settlements. We have been very lucky with the dramatic increase in productivity in manufacturing industry.

International Monetary Fund

Mr. Jim Lester: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on progress towards setting up the international monetary fund enhanced structural adjustment facility.

Mr. Lawson: The enhanced structural adjustment facility of the IMF, designed to assist economic adjustment in the poorest countries, has now been set up and the first loans should be made shortly. The United Kingdom will contribute one sixth of the total funding of the interest subsidy on enhanced structural adjustment facility lending, which is the largest contribution of any country.

Mr. Lester: I warmly endorse my right hon. Friend's significant contribution to the development of policy, but can he say any more at this stage about his hopes of decisions from the Group of Seven meeting in Toronto?

Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. Following the initiative, which I launched over a year ago in Washington on behalf of the United Kingdom to help the very poorest of the most heavily indebted countries to adjust their economies by giving some concession on their loans provided that economic policies were sound, there has in recent months and indeed, weeks, been an increasing degree of support for one variant or another of this approach. I am now hopeful that at the economic summit in Toronto, which I shall be attending early next week, we shall be able to reach an agreement on positive action.

Mr. Skinner: Will that amount of help to the poorest under-developed countries amount to £1,000 million? I use that figure because the Chancellor knows that when he assisted the banks to write off their debts against those countries that were slightly better off, that amounted to £1,000 million in tax relief. If the top four clearing banks in Britain plus Standard Chartered can get £1,000 million in tax relief, why can the Chancellor not write off £1,000 million against the debt of the poorest countries in the world?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman continues to get the wrong end of the stick. If a bank incurs bad or doubtful debts as a result of lending to anyone, whether a sovereign country or an industrial company, its profits are reduced and therefore the taxes it must pay are reduced. If, on the other hand, those debts are paid back, the profits increase and the taxes are then paid. It is as simple as that.

Economic Output

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of economic output over the latest 12-month period for which figures are available.

Dr. Twinn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of economic output over the latest 12 month period for which figures are available.

Mr. Lawson: About 4½ per cent.

Mr. Evans: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that good news. Will he take this opportunity to thank the British people for contributing to low inflation and low unit costs? Will he also warn them that high wage awards will undermine what has already been achieved? What will economic growth for the coming year be?

Mr. Lawson: As for the last point, the forecast I made at the time of the Budget was that economic growth in 1988 would be 3 per cent. At present it looks as if it may be slightly more than that, but I have no new forecast to announce.
It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend said—or implied —that although we have put the right economic policies in place and have stuck to them consistently year in, year out over nine years, despite everything the Opposition have said, the real credit for the dramatic success of the British economy—the economic miracle was what the Financial Times called it only this morning—goes to British business and industry and to the British people for their response to the economic policies and framework that we have put in place.

Dr. Twinn: Further to the congratulations that my right hon. Friend has extended to British industry and the British people, does he accept that these figures are another sign of the excellent management of the economy which he and our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have maintained?

Mr. Lawson: I am happy, with all due modesty, to accept the tribute paid to the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Nellist: If, as Conservative Members who have spoken on this subject have alleged, and the Chancellor has reinforced, low wage settlements in industry are a main contributor to economic growth, why did Treasury Ministers and virtually all Tory Members who are present here today vote last summer for hon. Members to get a 20 per cent. pay rise? Would not an example have been a good idea?

Mr. Lawson: I do not think that that had a great effect on the economy as a whole, but I should set the record straight. The advice that the Government originally gave to the House was for a considerably more modest increase in Members' salaries. It was the view of the House that the increase should be greater.

Mr. Cousins: The Chancellor has predicted economic growth at 3 per cent. New credit growth was 9 per cent. in the first three months—an annual increase of 35 per cent. So we shall have 35 per cent. growth in credit and 3 per cent. growth in output. Is that just right, too much, or not enough?

Mr. Lawson: Fortunately, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe in a planned economy so I do not have to answer that question. But I take from it an implicit endorsement of the recent increase in interest rates.

Exchange Rate

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his policy towards the sterling exchange rate.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): The exchange rate is a major factor in the determination of overall monetary conditions in the economy, which are set out to maintain downward pressure on inflation. Increases in domestic costs will not be accommodated by exchange rate depreciation.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my hon. Friend accept that British Aerospace, Jaguar, Pilkington—the profits of which have been announced today and are down £26 million because of the exchange rate deficit—and the CBI are not always wrong? Not allowing the pound to go too high is not accommodating inflation but accommodating manufacturing industry, which is the country's life blood, on which wealth depends.

Mr. Lilley: The improvement that all those companies, and British industry as a whole have shown in recent years has been the result of improved management, improved labour relations, gaining control of inflation and a better competitive position. It would not have been achieved or helped by competitive depreciation of the pound. Ultimately, it would have been undermined.

Mr. Chris Smith: Given that for most of last year an exchange rate of DM3 to the pound was considered unsustainable, given that the level is now DM3·13 and has been over DM3·10 for weeks, given that for the first four months of this year the balance of payments deficit was the worst ever, and given that the Chancellor has today revised his assessment of the balance of payments deficit for the rest of the year, what steps will the Government take to moderate and stabilise the exchange rate and help our exporters?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman's statement contains so many untruths and wrong facts that I should not be able to rebut them in the time available. As to the balance of payments, the policies necessary to curb inflation and maintain stability in exchange rates are precisely those that in the long term ensure equilibrium in the balance of payments.

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Archer: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Archer: Will the right hon. Lady spare a little time to hear about Sonia Reading, who is a young heart patient in my constituency.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes up time.

Mr. Archer: She has dissuaded her parents from raising funds for a private operation because that would he unfair to the 100 other children who are currently awaiting operations at the Birmingham children's hospital. Will the Prime Minister contrast that with her own approach—"I spend my money to go on the day I choose, at the time I choose and to the doctor I choose."? Which of those two approaches does she think is more inspired by St. Francis, who willingly embraced poverty for himself but was always mindful of the rights of others?

The Prime Minister: I wonder which the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks is better—to help to create more wealth so that there is more to spend on those in need and far more heart operations than there used to be? He knows as well as I do that when an operation is an emergency case, that operation will take priority. I understand that this was not an emergency case. I very recently visited Papworth hospital, which is absolutely superb in the heart operations that it does and is a great credit to the Health Service, as is this Government's record.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Wales are keenly looking forward to her visit tomorrow? She will find them in cheerful and buoyant mood following the package of measures announced by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for the regeneration of the Welsh valleys.

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend very much. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales' statement was a n excellent one. It was very welcome to Wales and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's handling of the economy has done excellent things for Wales, which has a very good standard of living.

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether her espousal of Victorian and, more lately, aldermanic, morality extends. to the issuing of threats to Opposition parties who do not kow-tow to the Government line, to the effect that they may lose their money for research purposes to combat the politicisation of the Civil Service? Does her assertion of moral leadership over the West adapt President Kennedy's 1961 slogan to "Ich bin ein blackmailer"?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's allegations. With regard to what is called the Short money, the arrangements were announced to the House on 24 May 1988 and the Government will honour their commitments. With regard to President Kennedy, that is not a matter for which I am responsible in any way.

Mr. Marlow: Since the majority of active IRA terrorists are known to the authorities and since, given the special nature of terrorism, the courts find it difficult to deliver them to justice, is it not time that we considered taking the players, as they are macabrely known, temporarily out of circulation? Deprivation of the liberty of the unconvicted is regrettable, but is it not a lesser evil than the slaughter of the innocents and the mourning, grief and bereavement that come after it?

The Prime Minister: I understand that my hon. Friend feels very strongly, as do all Members of the House, about the terrible atrocity in Lisburn, in Northern Ireland, yesterday, all the more since it was a charitable occasion in which families were taking part. It could have been even worse than it was. We would like to express sympathy, particularly with the bereaved families, and admiration for the armed services for the marvellous work they do, and also for the fact that they do go and help in these events in the community. My hon. Friend is asking really whether we would consider internment once again. This matter is kept under review, but I would be very, very reluctant to do so. It would be a very serious step to take. As he knows, we are constantly trying to improve all our defences against terrorism by trying to secure better co-operation from south of the border.

Mr. Kinnock: May I first agree with every single word that the Prime Minister used in that last reply?
Does the Prime Minister agree with the view of the Secretary of State for the Environment that people who believe that they should stop all development in their own areas are selfish? If she does take that view, what does she recommend as the cure for the "not in my back yard" attitude—the NIMBY syndrome—to which that same Secretary of State for the Environment now appears to have fallen victim? Does she think that the treatment should include putting him out to grass permanently?

The Prime Minister: With all the great issues in the world, the right hon. Gentleman never fails to surprise me with the smallness of some of his questions. [Interruption.] Of course one cannot stop development. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. Development has continued and will continue. There are 1·5 million more dwelling houses now than there used to he. Yes, we do try to protect the green belt. Yes, we do try to protect some of the land in the countryside. But development, in both town and country, there has to be, for the future of this country, and the thing is to see that it is the right development and, where it is in difficult areas, that it is in keeping with the development and the architecture of the area.

Mr. Kinnock: That was a strange answer from the Prime Minister. I thought that ministerial rectitude was still in fashion. Or is it the case that the Secretary of State for the Environment, like so many other members of the Government, keeps one set of values for display and another for use?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment does his work excellently and in a very distinguished way. Neither in intellect nor in performance can the right hon. Gentleman hold a candle to him.

Mr. Kinnock: I hear what the Prime Minister says. Does she not think that, as a general matter of conduct, people in glass houses should not throw stones and that Ministers in Gloucestershire rectories should practise what they preach, or stop preaching, or stop practising?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I do believe that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman takes his own advice.

Mrs. Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and with the citizens of Belfast, to whom I paid a visit at the weekend, that the IRA draws comfort and

encouragement for its dastardly acts, such as that perpetrated yesterday, from the fact that the citizens of Ulster may not vote red or blue but only green or orange, and that by fielding candidates from the main political parties we would signal to the IRA that that part of the United Kingdom is not up for grabs?

The Prime Minister: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but I do not think that that would be a solution to the very deep-seated problem. We have to do every single thing we can to defend all the people of Northern Ireland and to defeat the terrorism of the IRA, which shoots and bombs to kill.

Mr. Lewis: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lewis: When will the right hon. Lady address her moral crusade to the pornographic telephone services? Is she aware that I have given evidence only this week to her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of a young girl working for one of the private telephone companies having to listen to a pervert masturbating on the telephone? Is this the sort of thing that the Prime Minister wants to ignore in the telephone service, or is the problem that it is too near to the flagship of a previous Parliament?

The Prime Minister: Of course not. There are already laws which are designed to stop that very thing. As a number of hon. Members said immediately, why not put the telephone down very quickly?

Mr. Roger King: My right hon. Friend will know that today's unemployment figures show a dramatic drop once again, with the west midlands economy top of the league in creating new jobs. is this not further evidence that her economic policies are creating wealth, prosperity and a caring community, with over £9 billion a year raised by people for charitable works?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The unemployment figures today show another large, welcome drop, with the fall in unemployment in the north, the north-west and the west midlands being the greatest. They also give the welcome news that the increase in jobs in the calendar year 1987 was the greatest for a generation. We have a substantial increase in jobs, falling unemployment, a very good training scheme and an excellent economy.

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Salmond: Is the Prime Minister aware of the findings of last week's Glasgow Herald opinion poll, which showed that the political effect in Scotland of her visit to the Scottish cup final and her epistle to the Caledonians was to increase Scottish National party support to its highest level for 10 years? Will the Prime Minister demonstrate her extensive knowledge of Scottish affairs by reminding the House of the names of the Moderator of the General Assembly, which she addressed, and the captain of Celtic, to whom she presented the cup?

The Prime Minister: I had a very good day in Scotland. Whatever the hon. Gentleman tries to say, Scotland's economy and people are benefiting enormously from the way in which the Government are handling them.

Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Butterfill: In a week when the Budget tax cuts will first be seen in pay packets throughout the nation, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's commitment to cut taxation still further? Will she contrast that with the Opposition's action in voting against the tax cuts recently, and their determination to reverse them?

The Prime Minister: It was an excellent Budget, the results of which will be felt in pay packets at the end of this week and this month. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said at the time, he has set a new target of a basic rate of 20p in the pound, when it is prudent to do that. It might be both prudent and wise to remind hon. Members that the Opposition voted against the cut in the basic rate from 27p to 25p and to remind people that, had the Labour regime's 33p in the pound basic rate still been in force, a man on average earnings would now be paying an extra £13 in tax every week. That is what Labour would have done—taken more out of the pockets of working people.

Football Supporters (Behaviour)

Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the behaviour of certain so-called English football supporters attending the European football championships in the Federal Republic of Germany.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): With all Members of the House and the British people, I deplore the disgraceful scenes of violence in which so-called supporters of English football have been involved in West Germany this week. Over 200 hooligans from this country have been detained since Saturday.
I regret bitterly that so many German police have been needed and that the lives of people in Stuttgart, Cologne and Dusseldorf have been disrupted in this way by people from this country. The only positive aspect of this week's events has been the success of the measures taken to control the fans within the grounds at England's two matches in Stuttgart and Dusseldorf. My Department has co-operated with the football authorities and the police in both countries to bring about improvements in ground control. An estimated 5,000 England supporters are still in Germany, with tickets for Saturday's game against the Soviet Union and with travel arrangements linked to that game.
Clearly, more needs to be done to control football hooliganism, as the steps taken so far have been shown to be inadequate. A number of further measures have been proposed which the Government will look at and will discuss, where appropriate, with the football authorities. They include, as regards attendance at football matches abroad, considering whether courts might be given powers in the longer term to impose restrictions on overseas travel following conviction for an offence. At home matches, we shall consider and discuss with the football authorities the conditions for admission to football grounds, including national or club membership schemes. We shall also be considering the circumstances in which magistrates can control or restrict the sale of alcohol in the vicinity of sports grounds. We will be seeking a meeting with the football authorities within the next two weeks to discuss these matters and the future participation of national teams in international competitions.

Mr. Howell: I thank the Minister for his statement. We accept that the malaise affecting our country is extremely deep-seated. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is no good making football a scapegoat all the time? This is a law and order matter, and we hope to join the Government in doing what we can.
Is it not a fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was in Spain last week discussing hooliganism on beaches in that country'? Thank goodness the Government have not yet got around to blaming that on football. It, too, is evidence of this deep-seated malaise.
If the Government are to give the courts more power to stop known troublemakers from travelling abroad and besmirching this country's name, we shall support that. Will consideration be given to making it unlawful to desecrate the national flag'? No other country would stand

for people misusing the national flag in the way in which the Union Jack is misused by some of these people, many with National Front connections. The racism attached to the taunting of coloured footballers is also a matter of considerable concern to us all.
We hope to discuss the importance of understanding the social purpose of sport, and I ask the Minister to appreciate that when local authorities are starved of money, when youngsters who ought to be attracted into sports centres are priced out of them, and when physical education is downgraded in the education curriculum, we are undermining the whole future of sport, as well as sport in our community.
I assure the Minister that Opposition Members want to do all they can to support the Government in a constructive approach. Finally, will he confirm that only last week the Football Association was congratulated by his Department on accepting and carrying out all the advice offered? That is an added reason why we should see this evil not as the fault of football, but rather as a social disease to which all of us must apply our minds.

Mr. Moynihan: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, the football authorities, both the Football Association and the league, were congratulated on the work done with the police authorities and my Department to tackle problems inside the grounds in the build-up to the European championships. There is one exception to that. The Government very much regret that the FA decided to take tickets for the championships. I hope that it will decide against taking tickets for any future game in which the England team plays.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his offer of support on the law and order matters that he brought to the attention of the House. However, it is naive in the extreme to believe that the acts of violence in Stuttgart on Sunday and in Dusseldorf over the past 48 hours have been unrelated to the presence of the English football team in the European championships. Where England plays football overseas, criminally minded so-called supporters are besmirching our international reputation.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I assure my hon. Friend that Conservative Members' support for the action that he proposes is every bit as strong as that of Opposition Members. We are sick and tired of so-called English fans dragging the Union flag through the gutters of continental Europe. If the football authorities cannot stop that, my hon. Friend will have our full support in every action that he takes to do so.

Mr. Moynihan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that support. Suffice it to say that, while one would hope that in an ideal world the football authorities would take a very tough stance—not least in the domestic game—there has, regrettably, been much heel dragging in implementing the agreement that we reached with the football authorities in February last year. The time has now come, and, as I said, in the next two weeks all the measures that I have announced today will be considered in detail. We shall have specific discussions with the football authorities, and if necessary we shall come back to the House for its support in instituting a national membership scheme with legal backing.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Now that the Minster is aware of something that many of us have been


telling him for some time—that the hooligan thugs who besmirched this country's name in Stuttgart and Dusseldorf are not football fans but hard-nosed criminals, as the Minister himself said—does he not recognise that it is Government action, not the action of the football authorities, that is paramount? Does he also recognise that such criminal acts take place throughout Europe, as was shown last week when many Dutch and German hooligan thugs were arrested? Will he take the initiative and call together the European Sports Ministers and the European Home Ministers to find a common approach to a common law and order problem? Will he reiterate that he will take with him the football authorities in any future action if those authorities have to implement his measures?

Mr. Moynihan: It is indeed the case that the problems of football hooliganism that we are experiencing in this country are also being experienced internationally—not least in Germany, Holland and Italy. The scenes that I witnessed last night, in which more than 200 Germans were arrested, reflected that fact. It is regrettable that the problems that we are seeing with hooligan behaviour in and around football grounds cannot be divorced from the fact that the English team is playing. It remains a fact that the games are providing a target for thugs. Therefore, we must take action on two fronts: we must continue to contain the problem within the grounds and do further work, and we must pursue a range of judicial measures, which I have announced today, and which we shall discuss in a European context in the coming months.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I agree with my hon. Friend that the nation is deeply shamed by the behaviour of hooligans abroad, and I hope that we can accept the word of the football authorities that these people are truly nothing to do with the real sport of football. If that is the case, they should be isolated from the game of football. The Football League has been recommended by its advisers to put in place as soon as possible a membership scheme that will isolate people who are not true football supporters. May we have a guarantee from my hon. Friend the Minister and from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that they will press the football authorities to put in place as soon as possible a membership scheme?

Mr. Moynihan: The partial membership schemes that have been in place before and since the February 1987 agreement have not achieved the desired results expressed today by my hon. Friend. For that reason, it is essential that, as a matter of urgency, we assess whether a comprehensive national membership scheme can be put in place as soon as possible. That would be high on the agenda with the football authorities. Only then can we identify each and every person who goes to football matches, and thereby, we hope, remove membership cards from people who have caused problems. We need deterrents against hooliganism, and existing membership schemes are, regrettably, ineffective.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I have the same sense of disgust and despair as the Minister about the events in Germany over the past week. Does he accept that it is not football that is the cause of hooliganism, but football that has become a vehicle for it? Will he ensure that whatever steps the Government take they will not prejudice the rights of the millions of law-abiding citizens who watch football every week throughout the United

Kingdom, who should be entitled to do so and who should certainly be entitled to follow their national teams abroad if they choose?

Mr. Moynihan: The vast majority of individuals who enjoy football in this country and abroad attend matches without any intention of causing damage or behaving like the louts that we have seen in downtown areas of West Germany during the past five days. It is a fact of life that, to deter those louts, both inside and outside the grounds, we must put in place a comprehensive package of measures that is tougher than the voluntary one so far agreed. It is the Government's intention, both domestically and internationally, to pursue that target, because it is not satisfactory simply to divorce football from the hooligan element that we have seen follow it around the continent and during the domestic season.

Sir Bernard Braine: While assuring my hon. Friend of our full support for any effective measures he takes to deal with football hooliganism. may I ask whether he agrees that there is a need for action not merely on two but on three fronts? Hooliganism is not restricted to football. if my hon. Friend reads the newspapers every weekend, he will realise that towns up and down the country are being desecrated by mobs of young hooligans fuelled with alcohol, that police officers are being injured and that the police service is worried about the problem. Does he agree that there is a dire need to take effective action, not to loosen the licensing laws, but to tighten them?

Mr. Moynihan: I agree with my right hon. Friend's comments. For those very reasons, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is addressing himself to a number of issues in his area of responsibility, particularly those relating to the licensing laws and the availability of drink. He mentioned these issues today at a press conference and they were emphasised in my opening statement. We a re concerned, first and foremost, in this private notice question with the availability of drink, which has done so much damage around football grounds. It is interesting to note that the smallest number of incidents occurred last night, which was the only night when the town centre was kept dry for the football match.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Is the Minister aware that the inquiry into events at Stamford Bridge on 28 May after the Middlesbrough-Chelsea game is now under review by the Football Association? Will he confirm the receipt of a series of letters from my constituents to the management of Chelsea football club, alleging that there was no segregation at the ground, that alcohol was freely available and that the police had little regard for the safety of Middlesbrough supporters? Will he pass that file to the Football Association so that it can take that into account and refute or confirm the allegations?

Mr. Moynihan: A number of the points made by the hon. Gentleman and his constituents have been brought to the attention of the Football Association. I regret that t he urgent report requested from the football authorities following that ugly incident at the end of the season is still not forthcoming and that the latest assessment by the football authorities has been adjourned and deferred once again. When there is a major incident such as that, that sort of heel dragging is unacceptable. and the football


authorities need to ensure that they have a firm grip on such incidents and that they take appropriate action, which they have not done to date.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is strong police evidence that the National Front has infiltrated English football supporters clubs and is corrupting and enticing quite a few decent supporters to undermine society? That is smearing our businesses and holidaymakers abroad. We have a Prime Minister who has made us proud to be British. Let us keep it that way. I have been ashamed to be British during the past three days, and incidents of the kind that we are discussing must be stopped.

Mr. Moynihan: I hear loud and clear my hon. Friend's strength of feeling and I recognise, as does everybody associated with the football world, that extreme political wings have been associated with much of the organised vandalism and incidents connected with football. It is abhorrent that racial abuse has been associated with that; I share the view of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) about the appalling incidents of racial abuse that have been associated with that extreme political wing. We must do everything that we can to ensure that they do not happen again.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the Minister accept that the main burden of his remarks relate to the behaviour of English supporters? Without in any way wanting to display a holier-than-thou attitude, I hope that he will take these comments from one who has been a football supporter for more than 50 years and has attended gatherings that were better behaved than those on the Terrace of the House of Commons at present, at Hampden park, with over 100,000 people, at Ibrox park, with over 100,000 people and at Wembley stadium, with over 100,000 people. At that time there was a great deal of social cohesion. What is wrong within society is not a problem for football. We should be fighting for the preservation of football as a spectator sport, and we should therefore all unite in condemning bad behaviour and in supporting the action of clubs and the football associations in trying to stamp that out.

Mr. Moynihan: It is important to recognise that many football clubs have taken determined action in recent years to try to stamp out the hooliganism that has been associated with the national game. It is also important to recognise that every club that drags its feet on the issue is also dragging down the national game and those who have worked so hard for it. I regret that too many have dragged their feet. Closed circuit television should have been in every ground months, if not a year, ago. I confirm that the main problem overseas has involved alleged English supporters.

Mr. David Evans: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his strong views on this matter and on his resolve to put it right. Düsseldorf was a disaster for the country, but we should remember the England v. Scotland game, and the riots at Middlesborough v. Chelsea, when people were appalled by what they saw. Is my hon. Friend aware of the one club that has produced a 100 per cent. membership scheme? Is he aware that three seasons ago

there were 115 arrests and seven stabbings? Over the past two seasons and 80 league games there has not been one arrest or stabbing at the ground. In tennis terms, is that not 6–0, 6–0, 6–0 for the introduction of a national identity scheme, which overnight would show the Football Association and the Football league that they have abdicated responsibility for the safety of the game? No matter how reluctant the Government may be, they must accept the responsibility to preserve the national game and look after the people who live near football clubs.

Mr. Moynihan: I praise Luton Town football club for its tough and determined action on this issue and for implementing a scheme that has had undoubted success for the town and the club. It is regrettable that the Football Association and the league have not warmly welcomed the initiative taken at Luton. If they do not fast realise that the lesson learned at Luton Town, which if extended nationwide would lead to a nationwide membership scheme, is the right way forward, then the Government will have to show them the way forward.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Has the Minister seen a report this week by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which was outlined in The Times, which states that this is a law and order problem and that football is the victim? To say that the clubs are not doing enough to protect themselves is like saying that women do not do enough to protect themselves against rape. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last weekend, miles from a football match, 200 drunken youths ran riot in St. Ives in Cambridgeshire, five policemen were beaten up in rural Andover, and two more were beaten up in Newbury? We have the Notting Hill carnival and new year's eve celebrations. Is he aware that 272 Britons are in gaol in Spain and that this is a law and order problem, not among deprived dole queue kids, but of the "Loadsamoney" mentality created by the Government? The Minister praises Luton Town football club, but why will he not stop the passports? That is the membership card. That would stop the fans travelling to Germany.

Mr. Moynihan: If the hon. Gentleman feels that this is in no way a football problem, he should take cognisance of those who attended the Scarborough v. Wolverhampton Wanderers game on 15 August last year, those who went to the QPR v. Chelsea game, those who saw the Arsenal v. Millwall game on 9 January or those who witnessed the appalling incidents inside the gates at Chelsea at the end of the season. Football clubs must take tough and determined action. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must take action inside the grounds, which is primarily a matter for the football authorities, and outside the grounds.
It is impracticable under current circumstances to take away passports to achieve the hon. Gentleman's goal, but it may not be impractical when the computerised system is introduced within the next two years. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his announcement earlier today, which I have repeated. As foolproof a national membership scheme as possible would also help considerably to identify potential troublemakers and ban them from grounds.

Mr. John Wheeler: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is now no technical or practical reason why there should not be created on a self-financing


basis in this country a proper membership system for those who attend football matches? The main reason for creating such a system is to protect the overwhelming majority of decent people who wish to go to matches in peace. As to supporters going overseas, until British football shows some real initiative in resolving the problem, should it not be made clear that its clubs are not welcome elsewhere in Europe?

Mr. Moynihan: On my hon. Friend's latter question, I was glad to note today that the FA and the league have decided to withdraw their application for English clubs to be readmitted to European competition. I agree with my hon. Friend's first point and only wish that the football authorities would do the job. They are the people who are meant to run, and ought to run, football, and it should not be left to the House and the Government to intervene. I regret that it looks as though we will have to do so.

Lisburn (Murder of Soldiers)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the murder of six soldiers in Lisburn yesterday evening.
For the past six years the Lisburn borough council, in conjunction with the YMCA, has organised a series of charitable running events consisting of a half marathon together with shorter fun runs. This year some 4,500 people took part, more than half of them teenagers and young children.
Shortly after the end of the run, a bomb destroyed a Ford Transit van in which six soldiers were travelling. Four were killed instantly, one died on his way to hospital, and the sixth died in hospital last night. Eleven civilians, including an 80-year-old man and a two-year-old child, were injured, but all have now been released from hospital. The soldiers killed were a sergeant, two lance-corporals and a signaller from the Royal Signals; a corporal from the Green Howards; and a lance-corporal in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps. Next of kin have been informed. All six had come from Ebrington barracks in Londonderry, and were giving of their own time to help in an event which over the years has raised very many thousands of pounds for deserving charities.
I know that the House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the families and friends of those brutally murdered last night
My understanding is that the soldiers concerned travelled in the Transit van from Londonderry to Lisburn, and parked it unattended in the leisure centre car park, the start and finish point of the runs. Five of the soldiers took part in the marathon, which started at 6.30 pm. One took part in the fun run. While it is not clear when they finished running, it is believed that the van left the car park at 8.50 pm, and the explosion occurred at 8.59 pm. The evidence indicates that the explosive device had been attached to the underside of the van and consisted of some 3 kg of commercial explosive.
I must tell the House that, while the murders of the soldiers are horrific enough, there could well have been fatalities and casualties on a vastly greater scale if the bomb had gone off in the car park itself, where thousands of people were milling around, including a considerable number of families with young children.
What that indicates is that the IRA has no depths to which it will not sink in its determination to kill, no occasion, whether it be a remembrance service or a charitable event, which it will not attack, nor the slightest concern as to how many people of all ages—men, women and children—it may murder and maim in its vile activities.
What we face in Northern Ireland at present is the ruthless efforts of the IRA to intensify its vicious and bloody campaign. The Chief Constable gave clear warning of that, and the evidence of the arms shipments from Libya was further confirmation of the lengths to which the terrorists will go.
If civilised society is to survive, whether in Northern Ireland alone or in the whole island of Ireland, there can be no place for terrorism. We have no choice but to do all


in our power to thwart and ultimately to defeat the terrorist—and in thwarting the terrorist we need the maximum vigilance and alertness.
The end of terrorism has to be our aim, and while there is no short cut, we must employ all the resources that a democracy can bring to bear, the commitment of Government and Parliament, the skill and courage of the security forces, the whole-hearted support and assistance of the whole community in ensuring that the men of violence are brought to justice and, in addition, the fullest co-operation and support from the Government and people of the Irish Republic.
All those we need; and the events of last night not only in what did happen, awful as they certainly were, but also in what so easily might have happened as well, are the clearest message why we must not fail.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: It is again with sadness that I come to the Dispatch Box following a statement by the Secretary of State. Too often in the past 20 years have successive Secretaries of State and their Opposition counterparts had to respond to brutal acts of callous inhumanity. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said on behalf of Opposition Members, the sympathies and condolences of us all, and indeed of all right-thinking people in the country, go to the families of the bereaved and injured.
The tragedy of the situation in Northern Ireland is the waste of yet more lives, this time of men who had just voluntarily given up their free time to help the local community in its charitable endeavours.
The Secretary of State has given us details of the facts of the fatal events of yesterday evening. If any solace can be found in the midst of such a terrible tragedy it must be that the devastation and loss of life was not on the scale of the Enniskillen remembrance day bomb.
But we were told that Enniskillen was a mistake. Last night was no mistake. The lives of men, women and children were coldly and deliberately put at risk. But for the grace of God it would have been another Enniskillen writ large.
The lack of warning, as well as the very act of placing the bomb, showed the men of violence for what they are —indifferent to life and devoid of any feelings of humanity. It was a deliberate act of sectarian provocation, taking place as it did in a staunchly Unionist town, which is also the garrison headquarters of the Army. Taking place, as it did, shortly before the onset of the marching season, it can only have been designed to heighten sectarian tension. We must hope that it does not lead to a spate of further tit-for-tat reprisals, for that is not the way.
A number of serious questions have to be asked about security. The Secretary of State has told us that the six young men killed were off-duty soldiers in civilian clothing in an unmarked van, beneath which was placed a bomb, the van having been parked in a public place. Until investigations are completed, we shall not know the exact type of device used. However, we are entitled to ask how any device could be placed when, in the aftermath of the killings at Andersonstown, we were told that all security personnel had been issued with warnings to be on the alert, quite apart from the normal security arrangements for personal safety.
When was the van last searched, if trained soldiers felt that it was unnecessary to look beneath it? Why was the van not parked in a more secure place, if it was owned by the military? Were any instructions given to that effect, bearing in mind that, as we now know and as the security forces probably then knew, the IRA can identify plain-clothes soldiers in unmarked vans, on this occasion trailing them all the way from Derry? What sort of surveillance is used when soldiers are taking part in civilian activities of this kind, difficult though it must be? If, as we have been told, commercial explosives were used, do we know yet whence they came?
Finally, I want to deal with the calls for action that have been made in the wake of the bombing. Some have already called for the return of internment or selective detention as a way to rid the streets of potential bombers and gunners. But, as the Prime Minister seemed to say earlier, that is precisely the response that the IRA would like. The Opposition reject those calls directly and immediately.
The recent history of internment in Northern Ireland shows that it is ineffective. It provides men of violence with propaganda and it is a fertile area for recruitment. Its return could only serve further to heighten tension, to increase social instability and to push the likelihood of any political solution that much further away.
As the Secretary of State said, there are no easy short cuts, just a long hard haul. The way forward in Northern Ireland is to support the security forces in upholding the rule of law, by strengthening the democratic constitutional structures, thus weakening the case of the gunmen, and to show that the ballot box alone is the way to achieve lasting peace on the island of Ireland.
The firm adherence of the Secretary of State to the Anglo-Irish Agreement should be supported. It should not be forgotten that the perpetrators of this outrage are as committed to the destruction of the Anglo-Irish Agreement as they were to the destruction of that of Sunningdale. The paramilitaries cannot be allowed to dictate to the House and to our country, or to Northern Ireland or to the Republic, the political agenda.
The Opposition reaffirm their support for that agreement. We reject the knee-jerk calls for the introduction of repressive measures. The defeat of men of violence can be brought about only by the support for the security forces and adherence to the rule of law, with equality before it for all. It is by those means that the forces of democracy, despite the temptation to despair and such heartbreaking setbacks as last night, will eventually prevail.

Mr. King: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I particularly appreciate his clear and unequivocal call for full support for the security forces in the tasks that they have to undertake. At a time like this, above all, we are conscious of the tremendous contribution they make, the tremendous strains that are undoubtedly placed upon them and the need for them at all times to demonstrate the greatest alertness and vigilance that is necessary if we are to thwart the evil acts of terrorism.
On the particularly detailed questions that the hon. Gentleman asked about the type of explosive, further information is likely to become available on that shortly, and I cannot comment further today. However, he will have noted my comment that, on the evidence available to me, that bomb could have gone off in the car park with the consequences that I described.
The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to young men who had given of their free time to make a contribution to the community in which they were serving. I am conscious that some of those same young men were people whom people in the Nationalist community were proud to praise when they turned out in the floods at Strabane to help them through their difficulties at that time when the Army did valiant work. There is no question but that the Army does much for the community in Northern Ireland, for which everybody in Northern Ireland should be grateful. But at the same time we must be concerned about procedures and their security and what is possible for them. The Army takes those matters seriously, and I know that it will be reviewing the situation.
The hon. Gentleman heard, as did the House, the clear response that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on the introduction of selective detention, which it is important to recognise. I would only add that we have specifically retained that power within the legislation, were it thought desirable to take that course. But, as my right hon. Friend made clear, there are many considerations, many deeply difficult implications, that have to be considered in that respect. We keep the matter under review. We have no further comment to make at this stage.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Now that the mother of Parliaments has got round to moving from the subject of the stabbing of six footballers to that of the murder of six soldiers, no doubt the general public will wonder whether we have got our priorities right.
May I associate my constituents in the borough of Lisburn with the expressions of sympathy for the relatives of the dead soldiers? May I also ask, however, whether the Secretary of State understands that that sympathy will be tinged with considerable bitterness? My constituents remember the signing three years ago of an Anglo-Irish Agreement which promised peace, stability and reconciliation. Out of respect for those who have been murdered, and for those of us who are yet to be murdered, will the Secretary of State give instructions that that wholly false claim and promise should never be repeated?

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman may understand on reflection why, although I recognise that the outrage occurred in his constituency, I am somewhat disappointed in his contribution.
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's endless repetition of his concern about the phrase, let me say that he will have noted from my statement that in talking about "peace, stability and reconciliation" in the Province, I referred to arms shipments which we have good reason to believe came from Libya. He will know that those shipments started to come well before the signing of the Hillsborough agreement, and that this is a sign of the growing threat that the security forces are facing very bravely. I should have hoped that he would include in his remarks a tribute to all those who serve in his constituency, many of whom come from every other constituency in the land and some of whom lost their lives in the incident last night. They have gone there to support people of good will and integrity in Northern Ireland, which they are proud to do.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It ill becomes the Secretary of State to criticise what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) has said. The Unionist people have not only given their sympathy; they have

given their support to all the security forces. Those whom the Secretary of State thought he would bring with him in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the members of the SDLP, will not call for people to join the Army today; they will not call for people to join the UDR today; they will not call for people to join the police today.
The Secretary of State must face up to the fact—as must the House, although I know that it is not a popular thing to say on this occasion—that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has not brought peace; it has not brought stability; it has not brought reconciliation. [Interruption.] We live there. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) does not. He does not follow the coffins; he does not meet the widows and the orphans. He should shut his mouth until he meets the orphans, the widows, the people who sorrow.
The hon. Gentleman, sitting on his backside in his Gangway seat, has never followed a coffin in Northern Ireland. He has never put his hand on the curly head of a little girl or boy who will have no father, no mother and no succour from a father or mother. The hon. Gentleman had better recognise that it is an evil thing that we are fighting in Northern Ireland.
If the House thinks that we have to take these constant killings, let me say that we sympathise so sincerely with those who have been bereaved because we have walked that way ourselves. We have been down in the valley, and we have shed the same tears as they will be shedding. We know what this is about.
It seemed to be easy to identify the unmarked van. Will the Secretary of State start an immediate investigation into the civilian personnel who work in the Londonderry barracks? Someone there put his finger on that van, and it is the duty of the Secretary of State to find out who it was.
Furthermore, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the vehicle ought not to have been parked in a public car park? Will he give instructions in future that such unmarked vehicles should never again be parked in a public place but must be parked under Army surveillance? When he has obtained the details, will he also take into consideration the type of bomb that was used, and warn Army personnel that that type of bomb could be used again and could bring about more murders in the Army?
The people in Northern Ireland today are incensed that members of the SDLP are continuing their talks with the godfathers of the men who planted the bomb. That is resented by the right-thinking people of Ulster.

Mr. King: I hope that the House agrees that we owe it to the memory of those who lost their lives last night to do all that we can not to spread dissension, division and bitterness in the House, but to pledge ourselves to work together with all the constitutional parties to start building some harmony and co-operation, and not always seek to exploit the resentments and difficulties.
In answer to the last point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I have made absolutely clear my utter abhorrence of all who espouse violence or who fail to denounce it. I wish to see the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland sitting down, without inhibition and without any preconditions, to establish whether they can play their part in starting to build a rather better and more constructive future.
The hon. Gentleman raised a specific point about the van and the issues arising in connection with the journey, the parking and the lack of attendance. I spoke to the GOC in Lisburn this morning about that. It is a matter of


concern to the Army, which is at present reviewing its arrangements. The points that the hon. Gentleman has raised will be very much in the minds of Army personnel.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Secretary of State aware that, while I look forward to the arrest of the perpetrators of yesterday's crime, I do not think that it will stop the violence in the Province? Nor would internment. As we have just heard in the expressions of strong feelings, the problem of Northern Ireland is not just a security matter; it lies far deeper than that.
May I ask two questions? The first is about explosives. The Secretary of State has said that he will have more information later today about the nature of the explosives used. Are we satisfied that in co-operation with the South— not through the Anglo-Irish Agreement; there has been co-operation over the years—we know the source of the Semtex and the route that it takes through the Province? Are the security forces in the South aware of the problems that arise because of the movement of this high explosive?
My second question is about soldiers. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) mentioned the lack of security for off-duty soldiers. There is a feeling that there are too many non-operational soldiers in Northern Ireland, and that the guarding of those soldiers poses a problem not only for the Army but for the police.

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman's first point is enormously important. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the lion. Member for Antrim, North both referred to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I entirely understand the political attitudes about it, but some can read into those comments the idea that we should not work as closely as we can in co-operation with the South.
I am glad to hear confirmation from the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that he recognises, as any sensible person must—and as I said in my statement—that one of the four preconditions for success must be the full commitment and co-operation of the Government and people of the Republic of Ireland. In the long run—and perhaps not all that long a run either —terrorism could be as big a threat to the Republic as it now is to Northern Ireland.
It is believed that a commercial explosive was used—not Semtex, which might be defined as a military explosive. As I said in my statement, 3 kg of commercial explosive was used. Because of the additional resources that have been made available through the assistance of the Libyan Government, there is no doubt that within the island of Ireland very significant resources of weapons, ammunition and explosives are available. That is why we must have the close co-operation and commitment of the Irish Government, the security forces and the people, together with our own efforts in every possible respect, so that those weapons of evil, destruction, tragedy and death are recovered at the earliest possible opportunity.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: We welcome what has been said about this atrocity by Mr. Haughey, but do we not now have the right to expect words to be matched by deeds and a success to be made of the extradition arrangements? Although the last internment

was excessive and incompetent, will my right hon. Friend and the Government at least not rule out highly selective detention before they have discussed it with the Government of the Irish Republic, with a view to simultaneous action on both sides of the border?

Mr. King: It is very important that we should have effective extradition arrangements. I have made clear my views about that. We are continually striving to improve the effectiveness of security co-operation. I know that the House would not wish to ignore the fact that we appreciate the significant arms, weapons and explosives recoveries that have been made in the South by the Garda. We are grateful for their successes as well as for the very significant successes of the security forces. It would be quite wrong not to appreciate that at this very moment the IRA is trying to intensify a vicious campaign and that there have been a number of successful efforts by the security forces that have frustrated or thwarted the IRA. I am having to report, sadly, to the House today an occasion when the IRA was not thwarted, but it would be wrong not to pay tribute to some very real achievements in recent months by the security forces.
We do not rule out the possibility of selective detention. I said in my statement that I have kept that power available in case it is thought appropriate to use it. At the same time, I made it clear to the House that there could be very real problems. My hon. Friend referred to very selective detention. On a previous occasion he referred to selective detention as the recruting sergeant of the IRA. We have to consider responsibly those kinds of consideration and decide whether they would help or damage the fight against terrorism; but we keep these matters under review.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: In expressing my condemnation and absolute abhorrence of this act, and in expressing also my sympathy to the relatives of those who were killed, may I say without equivocation that I believe that there should be no hiding place for those who carried out this act and that anybody who has any information about it should make it available to the police so that those who perpetrated this act can be caught and brought to justice?
I ask the Secretary of State to end, please, the speculation about selective internment. Internment can never be selective. That is one of the lessons that we have learnt. It is not possible to have selective internment. Will he bear in mind that we had selective internment in the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s and that the problem is still with us? Since the day and hour that the Northern Irish state was formed, the empirical evidence has been that, if we want to give a fillip and an impetus to terrorism, the way to go about it is to introduce internment in any shape or form.

Mr. King: I think that some would argue with the hon. Gentleman's historical analysis. They might argue that on certain occasions selective internment was used effectively. I recall that it was used effectively not merely in Northern Ireland but also in the Republic of Ireland. However, I am conscious of the other aspect of the problem that the hon. Gentleman raised and to which I referred earlier, but I have nothing further to add on that point.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's absolutely unequivocal statement. I hope that it will be heard and listened to in the quarters where his words carry weight. It is tragic to


consider the deaths that have occurred in Northern Ireland, not just because of the number but because of the number of young lives across both communities from every sort of background. They are tragic because they are so pointless. It is tragic that lives have been lost, to the achievement of no end, by the security forces bravely defending communities and by terrorists who have achieved nothing. For all those reasons, we must bring about an end to violence in the island of Ireland.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend share the edification that many of us feel that at least this tragedy has been condemned by Members in almost all parts of the House? We hope that the message will go out that there has been universal condemnation by this House of what happened. Does my right hon. Friend agree that now is perhaps the time to mount a propaganda or a dissemination of knowledge campaign on an international basis about the viciousness of the IRA so as to dry up the supplies of treasure and money that are coming from misguided people in other parts of the world?

Mr. King: Yes, Sir. I believe that that is an important part of the total approach that we must seek to adopt to defeat terrorism. I have already said that there is no single, quick answer to the problem, and the House understands that perfectly well. We are determined to tackle every possible aspect that we can, whether it be more accurate information or the relaunch of the confidential telephone. That is one small contribution to the fight against terrorism, but it is already making a significant contribution by enlisting the support of the community in the fight against terrorism. The new arrangements for the security forces, the changes in the legislation that we are introducing, and the impact on racketeering by trying to tackle the sources of funds for terrorism are among the issues that we are tackling right across the board in our determination steadily to tighten the net around the terrorists.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Secretary of State note that my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to be associated with the tribute that he has paid to the men who lost their lives and with the sympathy that he has expressed for their families? Now that the IRA has turned its attention from the cenotaph to a sporting event for what must have been the first time, is it not evident that there is no innocent man, woman or child in Northern Ireland who is not potentially on its hit list and that this fact ought to be recognised around the world?
Does the Secretary of State think that the natural conclusion to draw from what has happened is that one cannot dismantle any of the mechanisms upon which could be built closer co-operation? The failure of co-operation so far, such as the chaos around the extradition arrangements, must have been music in the ears of these murderers. Does he not think that we ought to strengthen rather than weaken security co-operation?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. It is not necessarily a fact that men, women and children of all ages are now on the IRA's hit list. They are probably not on its hit list, but the IRA is so terribly callous that it could not care less if men, women and children happened to be on the hit list when it was in the process of committing other atrocities.
The hon. Gentleman also said that argument and division in this House are music to the ears of the terrorists. IRA terrorists want to exploit any resentments that can be built up between Northern Ireland and the Republic. It wants the agreement smashed and confusion to reign. Our job is to build up constructive co-operation and to stand together steadfastly against the terrorist.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State accept that those who elected me to the House unreservedly condemn the vicious and brutal murder yesterday evening of six soldiers in Lisburn? I offer my sympathy and that of my constituents to those families who are enduring great sorrow.
Does the Secretary of State also accept that we, as a United Kingdom, owe a tremendous debt to all members of the security forces who stand between us and the vicious attacks of the IRA, and that those members of the security forces deserve our unreserved support in their fight against terrorism? Is it not to be deplored that when the security forces are effective against terrorists, there seems to be a hue and cry from certain quarters, even in the House, and demands for inquiries into why the security forces have been so effective?
Will the Secretary of State address his mind to the fact that the members of the Unionist family give their support to the security forces, but is it not time that we heard from the SDLP a condemnation of this act? Will the Secretary of State ask the SDLP, and allow it to answer in the House, whether it unreservedly supports the security forces in their fight against terrorism?
Is the Secretary of State suggesting to the House that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is the price of co-operation with the South of Ireland in the fight against terrorists? Is the Secretary of State really saying that, if the Anglo-Irish Agreement had not been brought into existence, the Government of southern Ireland would not take any offensive against the IRA? That would be a condemnation of any country. The Prime Minister of that country was a former gun runner. The facts speak for themselves. I ask the Secretary of State to accept that the people of Ulster appreciate the great value of the security forces. We should give our support to any effective, aggressive measures against terrorists.

Mr. King: I had better say to the hon. Member that I hear what he says. I should have hoped that, instead of seeking to emphasise yet again his dislike, for whatever justifiable or unjustifiable reasons of the SDLP or of the Irish Government, he could have noted that on occasions I have criticised the SDLP for not being as forthright as I would wish in its public statements of support for the security forces, but the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has made it absolutely clear today, forthrightly and without equivocation, in what he said. I welcome that and hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) will welcome it. I hope that he will seek to encourage that co-operation with the Republic of Ireland, which is absolutely vital in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Does the Secretary of State understand that, while he welcomes the statement of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), people in Northern Ireland will see that statement in the context of the ongoing talks that the hon. Gentleman has with Sinn Fein, which, in the Secretary of


State's own words, is indistinguishable from the people who planted the bomb under the van last night? Does the Secretary of State agree that there is not really much point in hon. Members engaging in a competition to find stronger words of condemnation or criticism of the terrorists? That is probably what they want us to do. Why does he not do all in his power to thwart terrorists? Why does he not announce today the removal of the automatic right to 50 per cent remission for people convicted of terrorist offences? That would send a stronger message to the terrorists this afternoon than all the words that we have uttered together.

Mr. King: I have made clear my views about Sinn Fein, and I do not resile from anything that I have said. The hon. Gentleman has quoted some of my remarks. I certainly believe that the talks that are taking place at present, in so far as they are now inhibiting the chance of talks between the constitutional parties, are a major disadvantage, about which I have the greatest concern.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no point in bandying across the Chamber words of ever greater condemnation. I hope that he will realise that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I are engaged in the most comprehensive approach to the matters that he raised. I shall not talk about them in detail. We keep under review every aspect of ways in which we might intensify and make more effective the fight against terrorism.
Nothing is barred from that review. We have considered some of the matters which have been raised. We do not consider them appropriate at present, but I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that we are examining every single aspect. A further step forward which may be helpful to the security forces in the matter of evidence will come before the House this evening in the Criminal Justice Bill, and I hope the House will support it.

Sir Philip Goodhart: After this latest bombing tragedy, many of us are bound to recall that recently a suspected bomber was not extradited to Northern Ireland. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, at ministerial meetings under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, British Ministers can and do question the competence of sections of the Irish judiciary and sections of the Irish Ministry of Justice?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend, in his usual gentle way, is leading me into extremely difficult country. We certainly have made clear our full concerns about extradition. The judiciary in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland are independent and obviously must take responsibility for their decisions. However, I am most anxious, in so far as it lies within my power—and I know the absolute commitment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General—to seek to ensure that we have effective extradition between our two countries.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I recognise the need for the ritual condemnation of violence in Northern Ireland and the tired message of the Secretary of State, who keeps coming back to the House mouthing the same old platitudes, but is it not time for a completely new political initiative? Is not one of the problems the fact that the Government are hemmed in by statements and

undertakings given by the Prime Minister on successive occasions to Ulster Unionists in this Chamber? That is why we are now stuck in this logjam.

Mr. King: As the only hon. Member in this House to get up and start talking about tired old messages and the same old platitudes, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) takes the biscuit.

Mr. Tony Marlow: When my right hon. Friend is considering the possibility of introducing selective detention, will he take account of the fact that those who, perhaps by coincidence, are the most republican in their sympathies, are the strongest in their opposition? At the very least, there is the possibility that, had there been an effective policy of selective detention, those who perpetrated yesterday's outrage would not have been at large.

Mr. King: One of the questions is whether, had there been such a policy, there would have been more or fewer people available to commit such outrages. I heard my hon. Friend put his question about the choice to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He asked whether, if a choice was to be made, and if it meant saving lives, that was not a choice in which a few scruples had to be buried. But is that the choice, or is the choice that that decision could lead to even more lives being lost? The history of this matter has been rehearsed, and I have already disagreed with my hon. Friend, but those are the honest considerations that have to be faced.
I say absolutely clearly, because part of what my hon. Friend said is correct, that there is clearer intelligence. There is a better understanding of some of the people who are involved in terrorism, but there is great difficulty in bringing forward the evidence which will enable convictions to be achieved. There are considerations that have to be borne in mind. I hope that it will be clear to my hon. Friend that I take clearly and seriously the points that he has made.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State clarify what he said to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) about American money? Is it not true that in downtown Boston and elsewhere, and encouraged by one of the candidates in the American election campaign—at least by his attitude to Northern Ireland—more and more American money is likely to be collected?
May I gently ask whether, if there had still been national service in this country, any of us really think that the British Army would still be in Northern Ireland? How do well-intentioned, high-minded, good-willed Englishmen such as the Secretary of State think that the Army will ever solve the historic problems of Ireland?

Mr. King: I do not think that I shall go into the last part of that question. I am not sure that I agree with it, and I would need to think about it.
Although elements in the United States are still fighting the old battles and seeking to stir up all the old hatred and bitterness, many other elements there are now trying to divert the understandable loyalty and affection for Ireland into much more responsible channels. This evening in Northern Ireland I shall be meeting representatives of the American Ireland Fund, incorporating the Ireland Fund of Canada, and some hon. Members will meet them next week. In such groups responsible American leaders are


encouraging the channeling of the understandable and thoroughly praiseworthy affection for Ireland that is felt by so many people in America, Canada, New Zealand and Australia into these funds and into responsible hands, not into the hands of terrorists.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even those who believe that the Government's present Northern Ireland policy is mistaken admire his personal bearing in Lisburn this morning and the way in which he has carried out his melancholy duty here this afternoon?

Mr. King: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks from a position of absolute principle and integrity.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State recollect his response to the leader of the Ulster Unionists? Does he acknowledge that the people of the kingdom on Armistice day have taken note that the leader of the Ulster Unionists is the only leader of a parliamentary party here wearing medals of service in Her Majesty's forces? Will he bear in mind that the sacrifices in the Ulster battle are borne primarily by the people in Northern Ireland? I acknowledge wholeheartedly the sacrifice of those who have come from Scotland, England and Wales to serve there, some of whom are my cousins. However, I deprecate the occasional implication that Ulster Unionists are criticising the security forces.
I ask the Secretary of State to give us some guidance on whether an appeal to the whole community is realistic, given that at least 10 per cent. of that community backs Sinn Fein and the IRA.
Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman now tell us how the Government are hitting the resources of terrorism? I am not thinking specifically of aid from America, but of how terrorists milk public money and engage in robbery and other such activities.
Thirdly, is not one of the real obstacles to the implementation of the law that allows selective detention the fact that the Republic of Ireland Government are not in a position to co-operate with the British Government in the internment of Irish subjects?

Mr. King: I am not sure why not. Historically, there have been occasions when the Irish Government have pursued that policy, but I have nothing further to add to that. It is a matter for them.
In the cut and thrust of exchange across the Chamber, and in my disappointment at the contribution of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), I in no way sought to disparage his patriotism or service. I am aware that some of us have served in the armed forces in one way or another, and I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's contribution. I did not want to make disparaging comments about him.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the approach of the security forces, from wherever they come to fight terrorism in Northern Ireland and, as sometimes happens, in Great Britain. His words were well chosen in that respect.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that funding comes not only from America, and that probably less derives from there than from the rackets and other

activities. We are taking a number of steps to make those practices considerably less successful than they have been in recent years.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I express my heartfelt sympathy to the relatives of the six soldiers who were murdered last night, and I repeat my tribute and that of my constituents to the soldiers in the Regular Army, to the UDR and to the police who serve in Northern Ireland. On behalf of all those people I ask the House to pay tribute to them and to recognise the courage of the people of Northern Ireland who, for 20 years now, have faced atrocity after atrocity with great courage and a restraint that would not have been manifested in this country if the same mutilations and murders had taken place in England, Wales or Scotland. Is it not high time that people inside and outside this House stopped criticising the people of Ulster for not doing more, when the defeat of the IRA lies wholly in the hands of the Government? The people of Ulster have shown restraint and now expect the Government to play their part.

Mr. King: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. We who live among them—hon. Members who represent them and all who serve in the Government in Northern Ireland—cannot but be conscious of the courage of people in the security forces, the UDR and the police.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's last remark. The greatest fallacy is to say that only the Government can sort out the problem. I said in my statement that everyone has a responsibility to make a contribution—the Government, elected representatives in this House, the security forces, the Churches and the people of both communities. Many people have a contribution to make in the fight against terrorism. Not only everyone in Northern Ireland, but a friendly Government and people in the Republic, are needed in the fight against terrorism. All those components must play their part.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I endorse the condemnation by my hon. Friends of the horrible event at Lisburn last night. I, too, express my sympathy to the relatives of those who were killed and of those who suffered injury. I endorse the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and on this occasion, as I have done in the past, I ask anyone with information that will lead to the arrest or bringing to justice of the perpetrators to come forward.
Talk of internment—even though it is not acted upon —feeds the propaganda exercise of the IRA. All internment is selective, so there is no such thing as selective internment. By its very nature, it means that people are picked, not on evidence or on law, but on selection of information.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will endorse what I am about to say. My party and I do not need and will not take lessons from any party in Northern Ireland about the absence of support for terrorism. No member of my party has ever donned a balaclava or uniform, has ever manned a barricade or carried a coffin of a leader of the Ulster Volunteer Force, or has ever created third forces or led men armed with truncheons and wearing balaclavas—as have leaders of both Unionist parties in this House in the not-too-far-off past, which actions have contributed in a major way to the creation of violence in our society in Northern Ireland.

Mr. King: I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say and note his comments about selective detention. I am grateful for his clear commitment, which he has given before, to ensuring that those who are guilty of terrorism are brought to justice. I am also grateful for his denunciation of terrorism.

Several Hon: . Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I accept that this is a United Kingdom matter, and I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on drawing discussion towards the future, especially towards the wider principles. Is he aware that the way in which he spoke of American interest in Northern Ireland was not very reassuring to those who fear that concessions to the American Government have been a major cause of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the proposals for employment in Northern Ireland? Is it not possible for him, in a spirit of good will, to tell the American Government that it is not necessary to their worldwide interest to interfere in the affairs of Northern Ireland? In the end, the concessions that have been seen to be made to what many would, sadly, describe as interference can only be to their disadvantage in trying to persuade public opinion in this country?

Mr. King: If my hon. Friend is referring to the American Ireland Fund, he is reading an incredible amount into what I said. It is supportive of and interested in worthwhile causes, and I am very grateful to it. I would in no way seek to dissuade people from taking the undoubted human, family and ancestral interests which so many Americans have in Ireland. However, that interest must be channelled into responsible and worthwhile support.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we shall never be bombed out of Northern Ireland; that each act of violence makes us all the more determined to find peaceful solutions to the problems of the Province; that each atrocity that is perpetrated by the IRA, which scars Northern Ireland, makes us more resolved to support the people of the Province, promote their prosperity and starve the IRA of support; and that the vast majority of hon. Members hold the unquenchable belief that the forces of truth will ultimately always overcome the forces of darkness?

Mr. King: I wish that I could have put that as well as my hon. Friend. I wish that anybody who has entertained the idea of violence, or those who still support it in Northern Ireland, could have listened to those words. They are precisely what I believe and precisely what I find so tragic about the campaign of violence and terrorism. It is totally counter-productive to any aim that it may seek to ascribe and causes enormous misery and suffering in the process.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he and the Prime Minister, pursuing with great courage the correctly balanced policy in Northern Ireland, do not need the assistance of hysterical contributions, such as we heard earlier from the Benches behind me and elsewhere? Whether synthetic or genuine, such contributions will not contribute to the attainment of peace in Northern Ireland.
Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the Anglo-Irish Agreement, far from being a sham or hindrance to the attaining of peace, is a vital linchpin? Will he confirm that it is the Government's intention to reinforce that agreement as it develops with increasing ministerial meetings, and will he look favourably on the idea of a joint parliamentary commission?

Mr. King: We are having a review of the workings of the conference very shortly. I am struck by the amount of comment that is emerging. Even if people do not like the Anglo-Irish Agreement, there has been recognition that its elements and components make extremely good sense. I think that that recognition is being more widely expressed. Northern Ireland is never short of sound and fury. There are many issues about which people feel deeply and passionately. I never despise emotion, because some of the sufferings of the people of Northern Ireland are beyond description and their endurance is beyond praise. At the same time, if we are to make progress, we must learn to control that emotion and try to work in a constructive and positive way. As my hon. Friend said, I try to look to the future, not dwell on the past.

Mr. William Cash: Did my right hon. Friend notice the regrettable contrast between the statement made by the mayor of Lisburn and that made by the hon. Member representing Lisburn? The mayor of Lisburn had a constructive and moderate approach to the subject, whereas the hon. Gentleman tended to suggest that this incident was the fault of the people of Northern Ireland. Has my right hon. Friend noted from newspaper reports today that it appears that southern Ireland is making insufficient attempts to track down and survey Patrick McVeigh? Does he regard that with considerable concern and does he accept that the authorities in southern Ireland should take steps to ensure that they know where he is and track him down as soon as possible?

Mr. King: I cannot comment on my hon. Friend's latter point, because I have not seen the reports. I concur with the conclusion that my hon. Friend drew and hope that every effort is being made in that respect. I shall not comment on the first question asked by my hon. Friend. I have not seen what Councillor Bleakes—the mayor of Lisburn—may have said. I am trying to build a co-operative and positive approach. We owe it to the people who lost their lives last night and to others who have lost theirs over the months and years to build on the positive and constructive work that has been done, and that is what I am determined to do.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: As the Secretary of State is aware, at the weekend, with his complete co-operation and much help, I visited Northern Ireland. It gave me an opportunity to speak to a number of people in Northern Ireland, who asked me to bring this message to him and to the House. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom that does not elect mainstream political parties to Parliament. They feel confined to voting for sectarian red or green parties and they do not feel that they can choose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to stop the right hon. Lady, but I think that she has asked this question before. Today, we are discussing a specific incident.

Mrs. Gorman: Will the Secretary of State comment on whether that feeling of isolation contributes to the attitude of the IRA in perpetrating atrocities and whether Ulster people can be nudged into the Republic?

Mr. King: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her ingenuity in asking the Prime Minister and me a virtually identical question in the space of an hour. The safest thing for me to do is to give the same answer as my right hon. Friend.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 20 JUNE—Completion of remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]. 
Motion relating to the Wireless Telegraphy (Broadcast Licence Charges and Exemption) (Amendment No 2) Regulations.
TUESDAY 21 JuNE—Remaining stages of the School Boards (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on financial assistance to Opposition parties.
WEDNESDAY 22 JUNE—Opposition Day (14th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "Chaos in the Government's Housing and Planning Policies".
Motion to take note of EC document on European Community telecommunications policy. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 23 JUNE—Opposition Day (15th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "Deprivation and Disadvantage in Wales".
Motions on the Building Societies (Commercial Assets and Services) and (Limits on Commercial Assets) Orders.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 24 JuNE—There will be a debate on policing in London on a motion for the Adjourment of the House.
MONDAY 27 JUNE—Timetable motion on the Housing Bill.
Motion on the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order.
Motion on the Church of England (Ecumenical Relations) Measure.

[Debate on Wednesday 22 June 1988

Relevant European Community document:

4634/88
Telecommunications services and equipment

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee: HC 43-xx (1987–88) para 2]

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras): I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
I repeat my question of last week: when are we likely to have the oft-promised debate on foreign affairs? Also, further to the question that I put to the right hon. Gentleman last week, can he tell us when we can expect to consider the Procedure Committee's proposals on short speeches?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that last Thursday both my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and I asked for more time to consider and debate the Housing Bill? Why did he and his colleagues insist on trying to rush it through this week? Apparently it is not so urgent, because it is not now included in the business for next week.
The right hon. Gentleman asserted at the end of the debate on the Housing Bill yesterday that the official Opposition had done a deal to help the Government get the Bill through, and had gone back on that deal. Will he,


on reflection, confirm that such allegations are unfounded? Does he not, on reflection, consider that if the Government want to make such allegations in future, it would be better if the several people making the allegations made the same ones about the same time for a finish and about the same people, rather than different ones about different people and a different finish time, if only on the grounds that it would carry a little more conviction?
Is it not time that the Leader of the House recognised that the Government's business is in a mess and that there is no one to blame for it but himself and his right hon. and hon. Friends who introduced this ridiculous Housing Bill in the first place?
Before we debate the motion on financial assistance to Opposition parties on Tuesday of next week, will the Leader of the House clarify exactly what he was threatening yesterday about money for Opposition parties to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and, both before and after that, through leaks to the press? If he now complains that he was not making threats about the funding of Opposition parties, why did he raise the subject at all, particularly as he had previously promised the Leader of the Opposition that he would help to get that motion through?
Is it not shameful that a Government with a majority of 140 over the Labour party should behave in this shoddy and unprincipled way, which is more characteristic of a banana republic? Or has Al Capone taken over from Pontius Pilate as the role model for the Prime Minister?
Finally, will the Leader of the House, before next week, still the rumours that the Government intend going even further with their threats and that, if we field a candidate in the Kensington by-election, they will vote against the Short money?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall treat that last question with the contempt that it deserves.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a foreign affairs debate. I had indicated that I was hoping to arrange a debate in the near future, and I confirm that that is the position.
With regard to the Procedure Committee report on short speeches, I very much regret that I have not been able to bring the necessary motion before the House. Most hon. Members will recognise that we have had some difficulties, which has meant that it has not been easy to find time for that debate.
With regard to the Housing Bill, I made a carefully considered statement in the House yesterday. I stand by every word that I said and I have nothing more to say until we debate the timetable motion. I shall be very happy to debate the issue with the hon. Gentleman at that time.
I told the hon. Gentleman last week that I had hoped to say something about the Short money in my next business statement. As I have announced, the debate will take place on Tuesday 21 June.
On the question of allegations in the press about a conversation with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I do not accept for one moment the interpretation that has been placed on what is clearly a one-sided and grossly misleading account. My position is clear. I stand by the proposals that I set out in a written answer on 24 May. I made no threats with regard

to financial aid to Opposition parties. I said that in categorical terms to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook at the time and I trust that on reflection his recollection of the conversation will bear that out.
What I said to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman is not frightened to hear the truth, he had better keep quiet. What I said at that meeting was that the task of getting the motion through the House could be made more difficult by the events of yesterday, and I had previously discussed my concern over this matter with the Leader of the Opposition. If hon. Members look back at the proceedings on the Short money debates, they will see that there have been difficulties in the past.

Sir David Price: May we turn from human frailty to animal disease? Will my right hon. Friend give time this coming week to debate the BSE order—the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order—which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 14 June, a copy of which is not yet available in the Vote Office and which comes into effect, so I am told, on 21 June? This has major effects on diseased animals going into the food chain and should, I believe, be dealt with as a matter of urgency this coming week.

Mr. Wakeham: I will certainly look into the question whether the order should be in the Vote Office and will see what I can sort out about that. I am sorry not to be able to oblige my hon. Friend, as I should very much like to do, by arranging a debate on the subject next week.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is growing certainty of a link between radiation and leukaemia, as shown by the official report on nuclear test veterans and the findings of the Government inquiry concerning the Dounreay nuclear power station? The Government have now announced that they do not intend to set up a compensation fund for the people who have been damaged. May we debate next week that disgraceful decision by the Government?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern with which the right hon. Gentleman has raised these matters several times in the House. I have said previously that there must be time for consideration of the recent report. The Government have accepted the report and are now considering how best to implement its recommendations. The report identifies a number of possible explanations for the increased incidence of leukaemia near Dounreay, but does not point to any one in particular, so further investigation is required before any meaningful debate can take place.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the order on financial assistance to Opposition parties is amendable and debatable? Does he agree that the taxpayer would demand that the House should provide financial assistance to Opposition parties in direct proportion to the extent to which those parties abuse the time of the House, abuse, therefore, the taxpayer, and abuse their general privileges? Does he further agree——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If there is a debate, the hon. Gentleman may be able to make the point. It is legitimate to ask whether the motion is amendable.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any amendment—if he says that that is possible—would reflect the probity of the Opposition Chief Whip in the amount of money that the Labour party gets?

Mr. Wakeham: I hope to table the motion for debate later today. My understanding is that it will be amendable, but whether any amendments are acceptable and are called will be a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. I have to disappoint my hon. Friend. It is a Government motion and I shall be voting for it.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Is the Leader of the House aware that when I met Sir Peter Imbert, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, this morning I had to report that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition had been the victim of the crime of attempted blackmail yesterday and that the principal suspects were the Prime Minister, the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House himself? Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that all three suspects will co-operate with the police in their inquiries?

Mr. Wakeham: I am surprised that the commissioner did not arrest the hon. Gentleman for giving misleading information to the police.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend noted early-day motion 1228 in the names of three Militant readers and 15 other rising members of the Labour party, which calls for
the judicial rehabilitation of Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek and Pyatakov, … Leon Trotsky, Leon Sedov"?
[That this House, in the light of the special conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in one week's time, and of the judicial rehabilitation of Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek and Pyatakov, demands that the Russian Government goes further and gives complete rehabilitation to Leon Trotsky, Leon Sedov the chief defendants in the Moscow frame-up trials, and all those innocent people murdered by the Stalin regime.]
Does my right hon. Friend consider it relevant to arrange a debate on a matter so important to the future of the British people?

Mr. Wakeham: I regret that I shall not be able to find time for a debate on that subject in the near future. The Government understand the views expressed in the motion. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly made clear, we welcome Mr. Gorbachev's policies of reform, which include a more honest appraisal of Soviet history and Stalin's place in it.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange an early debate on city technology colleges, particularly as the Secretary of State is in Teesside today announcing such a college for Teesside, where £4·5 million of Government money is to be spent on one CTC compared with £3·6 million for capital improvements for the 238 schools in the rest of Cleveland?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that it is an important subject. I should like to find time for a debate, but I cannot promise it in the near future.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have a ring constructed here?

Mr. Speaker: This is a ring.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The European Court of Justice is to announce on Tuesday, 21 June its decision on whether the Government should be obliged to levy VAT on electricity, gas, water and sewerage for industry and commerce and for all new industrial and commercial buildings. Can my right hon. Friend say whether there will be a Government statement, in view of the importance of this issue to the constitution and to the Budget deficit?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern. I must wait until I have seen the judgment. I shall then see my right hon. Friend and find out whether he thinks a statement would be appropriate.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Can the Leader of the House tell us when the Chairman of the Committee of Selection will be in a position to add the names of Conservative Members to the names already on the Order Paper for the Scottish Select Committee? If he cannot tell us when his hon. Friend will be in a position to do that, can he arrange for a debate on the failure to have a Scottish Select Committee? Would he be prepared to give money to those Opposition Members who are willing to form a Select Committee in the absence of one appointed by the House?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot be forthcoming on the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. With regard to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, regrettably the proposal that I put to the Opposition parties for the establishment of the Select Committee did not prove acceptable to them. I hope to see the Chairman of the Committee of Selection shortly to discuss this. It would be helpful to have the discussion before deciding how best to proceed. I can confirm that there will be an opportunity for a debate on the setting up of the Committee.

Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet): My right hon. Friend will recall that, on the occasion of the last perturbation in the smooth running of the usual channels, 1 invited him to extend the timetabling procedure to major Bills. He said then that he would prefer to soldier on with the present system. As the present system seems to have foundered because Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen cannot deliver a deal, even if they want to do so, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the debate that he has listed for Monday week on timetabling can be extended to cover other business of the House should the need arise?

Mr. Wakeham: The usual channels existed long before my hon. Friend and I came into the House, and I suspect that they will exist long after we have gone into history. They go through difficult stages from time to time. The best that all men of good will can do is try to sort them out.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that this is not the first time that threats and blackmail have been used about the Short money, as happened yesterday when he and others were using such threats? Is he aware that on the night the Firearms Bill went through, which the Government had guillotined and on which some of us played a part in forcing 100-odd Tory Members to stay so that the Government would get the Bill, in front of witnesses one of his mates told our people in the Whips Office that if they did not call off their rebellion——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is supposed to be about the business for next week.

Mr. Skinner: We want to debate the whole issue of blackmail.
Is the Leader of the House aware that the Whips were threatened to keep out of the Chamber because we were forcing the Government to do their job properly? It is high time the Government stopped the blackmail. They have blackmailed the nation and they must stop doing it here.

Mr. Wakeham: As yesterday's example of the evil to which the hon. Gentleman refers was a completely wrong analysis of the position, with absolutely untrue allegations being made, I believe that the other one is just as likely to be wrong, and I shall not pursue the matter further with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Bastille day the Secretary of State for Transport will be publishing a report presented to him by British Rail about the need for improved rail links to the Channel tunnel? Is he further aware that this has wide implications for public transport policy in and around London and far beyond to the regions? In view of the increasing interest in the subject, will he please arrange a debate on the report as soon as it is available?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that it is an important subject and will be an important part of the success of the Channel tunnel. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to decide how best to proceed.

Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate next week on the state of relations between the business managers of both parties? May I tell the Leader of the House that before he moved the Adjournment motion yesterday I was approached by a Tory Whip and was discreetly threatened, as a Labour Whip on the Housing Bill, that if we did not finish, all the things that we subsequently heard about Short money and the guillotining of future legislation would probably happen? I was also told that assurances had been given in writing. The Leader of the House has been gravely misled by the Chief Whip of his party. If there is evidence in writing, he should put up or shut up.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman bobs in and out of his Whips Office so fast that I cannot be sure whether he is a Whip at the moment. I do not recognise him as an accurate analyst of the situation.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle): May we have a debate soon on Church relations, so that light may be thrown on the way in which the Archbishop of Canterbury, so much the leader of the Church militant when criticising Government measures, appears to be the head of the Church supine when visiting Moscow this week, having refused to meet the courageous Russian Orthodox clergy, who have been persecuted and imprisoned for their beliefs, on the grounds that it might irritate his generous hosts and a complacent hierarchy in the Soviet Union?

Mr. Wakeham: As my hon. Friend will have noted, I have announced a motion on the Church of England (Ecumenical Relations) Measure for debate on Monday 27 June. The Measure regularises relations at a local level between the Church of England and churches of other

denominations. I should have thought that my hon. Friend, with his customary skill, would be able to make his points in that debate.

Mr. Michael Welsh: I notice that six hours have been set down for private business next week. I accept that there are many other matters to discuss as well as private business, but is it possible to reduce the time allowed for private business to three hours and have a debate on the Third world during the other three hours? It is a long time since we debated that issue. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot allow that time, will he assure us that we will have a debate on the Third world before the recess starts in August?

Mr. Wakeham: That is a good suggestion, and I wish that I could fit it in. Unfortunately, the time for private business is not in my hands, but is entirely a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, who has nominated that business for next week.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Bristol city council is the only local authority that intends to petition against an urban development corporation? This will cost the hard-pressed ratepayers some £140,000, delay the start by up to nine months, deny 5,000 man-years of work to an area of high unemployment, stop 3,000 houses being built and reduce the leisure facilities available in that hard-pressed area. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this Labour authority, which does little for Bristol and little for the area that I represent?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend has raised very important issues. I should like to find time for a debate but, unfortunately, I cannot next week. I wonder whether my hon. Friend might like to try his luck with an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the shambles of the television presentation on Tuesday morning of the types of lighting and cameras that may be introduced, would it not be a wise idea for more hon. Members to see the "plans"—if one can use such a term —for this extraordinary innovation, instead of having them shown just to a few members of the Committee and those of us who thought that we should keep an eye on the proceedings?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most hon. Members have no idea that there are four lighting options? One, a long green lamp, makes the House look like a fish tank. Another option is to close off daylight permanently from the House, so there would be bricked up windows with lights behind them. The third and fourth options are lights so intense that many of us who looked across the chamber from the Back Bench saw only an orange blur —[Interruption.]There were some less attractive colours as well. There was extreme reluctance to show how far the cameras would hang down. Those of us who volunteered to stand and demonstrate with the mock-ups were not allowed to do so.
I am serious about this matter. It will be an outrage if these things are put up without most hon. Members knowing the implications. It is essential that this matter be debated. Finally, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has had a long run.

Mr. Faulds: It is a very important matter.

Mr. Speaker: One short sentence, then.

Mr. Faulds: One short sentence. As an example of how the Chamber will be treated by the television cameras, did the Leader of the House last night see "Newsnight", in which 29 hours of serious debate, with some excellent contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)——

Mr. Speaker: Order. These matters would be best raised in a debate. That is more than one short sentence. I have been very generous.

Mr. FauIds: You will be the sufferer, Sir.

Mr. Wakeham: At the demonstration in the morning, I took it that the hon. Gentleman said that his difficulties with his sight and other physical problems were a result of advancing years. I do not accept for one moment that the demonstration was a shambles, but I recognise that the hon. Member contributed to efforts in that direction throughout most of the proceedings. I do not think that he succeeded.
I thought that the demonstration, which had been advertised in the all-party Whip and announced in the House in response to a question to me by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), was, in spite of the hon. Gentleman's efforts, a reasonable success in giving the Select Committee some view of the alternatives. The Select Committee will discharge the obligation put upon it by the House of Commons and will produce a report, which it will be for the House of Commons to consider.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not mind being an Orange blob on this side of the Chamber.
Last week I raised a serious matter about a debate on security in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience, will agree that a statement is not adequate to deal with this important matter. There is grave alarm in the Province that representatives have not had an opportunity to put their views to the House. There is more alarm when we see that a man who is charged with the killing of one of the corporals has been given parole, whereas ordinary civilian prisoners cannot get parole on humanitarian grounds. Surely the Leader of the House should seek, at least before the summer recess, to have a debate in the House on this important matter.

Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he said about me personally and I recognise the strong feelings on the need for a debate. I thought that you were generous, Mr. Speaker, in the time that you allowed for the statement. I appreciate that that is not a substitute for a debate. I cannot promise an early debate, but I shall bear the hon. Member's strong representations in mind.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Will the Leader of the House seriously consider having a debate on football hooliganism? We keep getting reports which contain the information that the matter has been discussed at No. 10. They are always discussed at No. 10. What does the Prime Minister know about football? The problem gets worse and worse. We need a debate so that people can express their views, and we might then get somewhere. If we were

to involve people such as Brian Clough, who is a disciplinarian on and off the field, we might get somewhere.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not for one minute accept the hon. Gentleman's comment about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is taking these matters extremely seriously and spending much time trying to deal with these difficult problems. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the subject. I cannot promise him an immediate debate, but I shall certainly bear the matter in mind.

Mr. James Hill: My right hen. Friend will probably have noted that on Monday evening there is to be an Adjournment debate on council estates and security patrols. This was the beginning of the argument that many of these football hooligans learn their basic laws in gangs on council estates. We must examine this matter still further. The Home Office gave me a fairly good reply, and I should have thought that a national policy on security——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask for a debate, not debate the subject now.

Mr. Hill: I ask my right hon. Friend to look into the proposition that we have a debate on national policy for security, not only on council estates, but on private estates too.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern in this matter, and I know that it is shared by a number of our hon. Friends, but I cannot promise him an early debate on the subject.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate on the Channel tunnel proposal as it affects through trains from Europe to the north? As there have been problems with British Rail and Customs and Excise, is it not time that we cleared the matter up, because it is very important to the regeneration and economic well being of the north?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that it is an important matter. I have undertaken to refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and that is the next stage.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Is the Leader of the House aware that British Shipbuilders is being prevented from bidding for a new order from Cuba—on which the jobs of thousands of my constituents depend —by the Department of Trade and Industry, which has to give its approval to the intervention fund allowance? The deadline expires shortly, after which time the work will go to one of our rivals. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry to make a statement and tell us exactly why he is preventing British Shipbuilders from going ahead with the bid?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend, and if he feels that it is appropriate to make a statement or write to the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that he will do so.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prime Minister recently assured us that unemployment in the Dearne valley area of south


Yorkshire was falling, when it is not? She also assured us that we were receiving special priority in the urban development programme, when in reality we are getting less than areas with half the unemployment and a third of the population. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the Prime Minister suggested that we were being greatly helped by derelict land grants, when the changes in the arrangements for such grants mean that the outlook is very grim indeed? May we therefore have a debate on the plight of necessitous areas in England, such us ours? I hope that the Prime Minister will condescend to join in a debate on that matter, even though she does not speak on anything else.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not for a moment accept the allegations made by the hon. Gentleman about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have noted the substantially improved unemployment figures announced today, which should be welcomed by both sides of the House.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate at some time on the abuse of spending public funds on television advertising campaigns run by various Government Departments? Such campaigns are increasingly widely commented upon across the political spectrum as being nothing more than Conservative party advertising in disguise. In particular, will he address himself to reports that the Government are to spend £1 million on television advertising in an attempt to promote the poll tax? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is pure political propaganda rather than a proper use of public funds? Does he agree also that, in the interests of the democratic process, that practice must stop, and will he allow the House to debate it so that we may discuss the concept and the underlying principle?

Mr. Wakeham: There are clear rules about the purposes for which public money can be spent by the Government, and those purposes have to be in support of the laws of the land, not in support of policies before the House. Those rules are scrupulously obeyed by this Government, as I believe they were by previous Governments. I wish that I could say the same about some local authorities.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the promise to publish a White Paper on the Official Secrets Act this month is to be honoured? If it is, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that its publication would provide a good opportunity for the Prime Minister to do what she likes doing least, making a major speech in the House? Does he also agree that it would provide the right hon. Lady with an opportunity to announce an inquiry into the activities of the security services and to discuss the urgent need for democratic accountability in the security services? She would disappoint the authors of the 10 books that are being written about the security services, but please the taxpayer, if she announced that she has no plans to ban those books.

Mr. Wakeham: I shall not answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Both the Home Secretary and

I have made certain statements at the Dispatch Box about the publication of a White Paper and about a debate, and I stand by those statements.

Mr. Simon Hughes: When considering the proposed guillotine motion on the Housing Bill on Monday week, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that 58 groups of amendments have already been selected, including 73 Government amendments and new clauses? Whatever view the right hon. Gentleman takes of events so far, it is important that parts IV and V of the Bill and the new clauses are given adequate time for debate.
Will he ensure that the Government motion on the air pollution order which we should have debated last night, is reinstated at an early opportunity?
Finally, has the Leader of the House seen early-day motions 1098 and 1201?
[That this House welcomes the recent Law Lords decision in the case of Hayward v. Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd, affirming the principle of equal pay for work of equal value; believes that such victories are important to the creation of a more just and equal society for all people; and further calls upon Her Majesty's Government to act to eliminate sexual discrimination in the workplace.]
[That this House notes with concern the conclusions of the Policy Studies Institute report revealing the barriers to the advancement of women doctors within the medical profession; decries the use of patronage through the old boy network to discriminate against women; agrees that the waste of such talent can only be harmful to the profession and to medical services as a whole; and calls on the Government to act immediately with the profession to stop this discrimination and ensure equal opportunity in the interests of the medical profession and its patients.]
The early-day motions deal with equal opportunities for women and the report of the Equal Opportunities Commission this week showing that the pay of women in Britain is now 26 per cent. behind that of their male colleagues—the highest in 10 years. The figure in Scotland is 28 per cent. May we have an early debate on the poor state of equal opportunities for women in this country?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall announce in due course how we propose to deal with the orders lost last night. I shall table the timetable motion for the Housing Bill as early as I can next week—certainly by the middle of the week. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until then to find out its terms, but I shall bear in mind his remarks. He must bear in mind the amount of time that we have already spent on the Bill, but I take his point.
The hon. Gentleman asked about equal pay for work of equal value, which is dealt with in early-day motion 1098. The Government monitor closely the work of the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts to see whether they are working fairly and effectively. We shall continue to do so in the light of the important decision to which the hon. Gentleman referred and other test cases still before the courts.

Mr. Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on the need to supply Government money to electrify British Rail's east midlands line? That is particularly important given the development of the Channel tunnel and the electrification of the east coast route, which will lead to competition with the east


midlands area, which could lead to closures in the area and to the economic decline of my constituency and many others.

Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, InterCity services do not receive grants, so there is no question of any investment grant. British Rail must decide its own investment priorities. The Government should not ask it to undertake investments against its commercial judgment.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on Smith houses, those defective homes built in the 1950s, which councils such as Leicester city council are having to buy back from people who bought them in that defective condition? Leicester city council applied, not for a grant, but to borrow £1·7 million. The Government have provided nothing. They have refused to allow the council any such borrowing, and it is believed to be the only council——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman can deploy that case if there is a debate. Now, he should ask whether there is to be a debate.

Mr. Janner: May I ask when we are to have a debate on this matter, which is worrying many people in many parts of the country?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise a debate, but the hon. and learned Gentleman may note that we have Environment questions on Wednesday. He might question the Secretary of State then if he gets the chance.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would it be a good idea to have a debate next week on trusting one another in the House? That would enable us to discuss early-day motions 228, 253, 272, 273, 286, 622, 627, 1142 and 1156.
[That this House notes in the book, Campaign, by Rodney Tyler, the Selling of the Prime Minister: from behind the doors of Downing Street and Conservative Central Office—A unique inside account of the Battle for Power that the author on page 1, chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1, states 'It was an extraordinary turnaround in fortunes from the moment on 27th January 1986 when Mrs. Thatcher secretly confided to a close associate that she might have to resign …' and on page 3 that 'On the eve of the crucial Westland debate she herself felt shaky enough to doubt her future' though some around her later sought to dismiss this as late evening anxieties of the sort that had disappeared the following morning. It is certainly true that if Leon Britian had chosen to, he could have brought her to the brink of downfall, by naming the real culprits inside Number 10. Instead, he chose to remain silent', and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account of what transpired between 3rd January and 27th January 1986, at Number 10 Downing Street, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Office's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
[That this House notes that the Member for Aldershot on page 136 of his book Heseltine: the unauthorised Biography, states in relation to the Westland Affair that 'John Wakeham issued an order of the day which contained the trite, if effective message, that it was time for all good men to come to the aid of the party. We did and calls on the Leader of the House, The Right Honourable Member for South Colchester and Maldon, to explain when he first knew

the role of the then Trade and Industry Secretary, The Right Honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, in the matter of the disclosure of a selectively leaked Law Officer's letter.]
[That this House notes that in his book Mrs. Thatcher's' Revolution, published this week by Jonathan Cape and Co., Mr. Peter Jenkins writes, on page 200 'Britian himself refused to enlighten the Select Committee on any point of substance. However, he is reputed to have told close friends subsequently that not only has she known perfectly well what had happened but that, on the day following the leak, had expressed her satisfaction to him at the way things had been handled. However at that time, the downfall of Heseltine had not been achieved. … He ( Mr. Brittan) might point the finger at her ( Mrs. Thatcher). Potentially he now had the power to destroy her': and calls on the Prime Minister to give the House a full account of her conversations with the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, over the period from 3rd January and 27th January 1986, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
[That this House notes that in The Thatcher Years—A decade of Revolution in British Politics, published by BBC Books, Mr. John Cole, on page 170, considering the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter in the Westland Affair, writes 'why did he ( Sir Robert Armstrong) not give her a quick interim report when he discovered that the leak was an inside job, authorised by her office? Why did Leon Brittan not tell her? Or the private secretary concerned? Or his chief, who sits in the same room? Or her press secretary? And why did she never ask?'; and calls on the Prime Minister to inform the House of the answers to these questions.]
[That this House notes that, in the book 'Not with Honour—The Inside Story of the Westland Scandal', on page 142, Magnus Linklater and David Leigh write that 'Instead, following Haver's complaint, she spoke privately to Brittan about the leak. Although this is something the Prime Minister has failed to disclose, to widespread disbelief the evidence comes from an authoritative source, who told us: "The Prime Minister knew about the leak. She was pleased it had been done. There was a meeting between Brittan and her after the complaint from Mayhew. Only the two of them were present … Brittan assumed she knew of [the leak's] origins. You must draw your own conclusions." One of Brittan's friends adds, "Nobody thought it was a problem. The complaints were out of the public domain and any inquiry was expected to be a formality. Leon wasn't worried at all about it."; and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account to the House of the meeting between herself and Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, referred to therein.]
[That this House notes that in an article by Mr. Paul Foot in the Daily Mirror, dated 28th January, a Ministry of Defence official, Mr. Paul Newbegin, is quoted as having admitted witnessing the shredding and incinerating of the log book of HMS 'Conqueror'; is concerned that if this statement is true, the Ministry of Defence is guilty of having established an entirely bogus investigation into the disappearance of the log book when the facts of its deliberate destruction were already known; further notes the parallel between this case and that of the leaked Solicitor General's letter in the Westland Affair, when a similar investigation was launched despite the availability in advance of all the salient facts; and calls upon the Secretary of State for


Defence to set up an immediate inquiry with the genuine purpose of furnishing Parliament with a full explanation of this bizarre series of events.] 
[That this House calls for a debate on the conduct of honourable and right honourable Members of the House, considering the position of back bench members who resort to unparliamentary language and Heads of Government who misuse Law Officer's letters and then display lack of candour about what they have done.]
[That this House notes that the Guardian of Friday 20th May carried an article entitled `Thatcher's boy in a cleft stick', which stated that according to Foreign Office sources 'Mr Charles Powell wants Washington or Paris nothing less, but he's not going to get either of them', and that Mr. Powell had been offered and turned down the post of Ambassador in Stockholm, and that the article added `Powell has another string to his bow: he knows where the bodies are buried in the Westland Affair. He escaped appearing before a Select Committee, but not their sharpest criticism for his orchestrating role in the leaking of a letter from the then Solicitor General, which ultimately resulted in the then Secretary of State for Defence's resignation'; expresses its concern that knowledge of wrong-doing by the Prime Minister is alleged to put Mr. Powell in a position to obtain an Embassy more senior than his status warrants; asserts that this is not in keeping with the high moral ground claimed by the Prime Minister; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to make a statement.]
[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to set up an inquiry into the SAS operation in Gibraltar, to address itself to the questions as to whether the Joint Intelligence Staff, through its current intelligence groups, was responsible for preparing assessments of the situation in Spain and Gibraltar prior to the shooting, if so, as to how

many assessments were made and on what days, as to whether the Joint Intelligence Committee, in any form, considered these or other assessments or reports on the matter, if so, as to when it did so and whether it was as a full committee, a sub-committee or by the chairman alone, as to to whom advice was offered by the Joint Intelligence Committee, as to whether the Permanent Secretaries' Committee on the Intelligence Services was involved in considering or formulating assessments or advice, and, if so, on what occasions, as to on what occasions advice or assessments were offered to the Prime Minister by the Permanent Secretaries' Committee on the Intelligence Services, the Joint Intelligence Committee, MI5 or Sir Colin Figures, as to who, or which committee, proposed the use of the SAS, as to whether the SAS was ordered to operate in Gibraltar under pre-existing rules of engagements, or as to whether specific Rules of Engagement were drawn up, as to on what occasions, in the 72 hours prior to the shooting, the Prime Minister was appraised of the sequence of events in Gibraltar, and on what occasions, over the same period, she issued instructions or agreed actions in relation to the events, and as to what consultation she undertook with the Overseas Policy and Defence Committee in the Cabinet.]
On the radio this morning—and he has said this in the House—the Leader of the House eloquently declared that it was necessary to have undertakings and understanding for the usual channels to work and that that depended on trust. Is it not perhaps equally true that the work of the House depends on our ability to trust the word of the most senior Ministers? That brings us back to where the rot started——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It does, indeed, bring us back to business questions.

Mr. Wakeham: It seems that I am a trusting person and the hon. Gentleman is not.

Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]

As amended ( in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New Clause 71

CROWN COURT PROCEEDINGS—ORDERS RESTRICTING OR PREVENTING REPORTS OR RESTRICTING PUBLIC

ACCESS

`(1) A person aggrieved may appeal to the Court of Appeal, if that court grants leave, against—

(a) an order under section 4 or 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 made in relation to a trial on indictment;
(b) any order restricting the access of the public to the whole or any part of a trial on indictment or to any proceedings ancillary to such a trial; and
(c) any order restricting the publication of any report of the whole or any part of a trial on indictment or any such ancillary proceedings,
and the decision of the Court of Appeal shall be final.

(2) Subject to Rules of Court, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under this section shall be exercised by the criminal division of the Court, and references to the Court of Appeal in this section shall be construed as references to that division.

(3) On an application for leave to appeal under this section a judge shall have power to give such directions as appear to him to be appropriate and, without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, power—

(a) to order the production in court of any transcript or note of proceedings or other document;
(b) to give directions as to persons who are to be parties to the appeal or who may be parties to it if they wish and as to service of documents on any person; and the Court of Appeal shall have the same powers as the single judge.

( ) Subject to Rules of Court made by virtue of subsection (6) below, any party to an appeal under this section may give evidence before the Court of Appeal orally or in writing.

(5) On the hearing of an appeal under this section the Court of Appeal shall have power—

(a) to stay any proceedings in any other court until after the appeal is disposed of; 
(b) to confirm, reverse or vary the order complained of; and
(c) to make such order as to costs as it thinks fit.

(6) Without prejudice to the generality of section 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, Rules of Court may make in relation to trials satisfying specified conditions special provision as to the practice and procedure to be followed in relation to hearings in camera and appeals from orders for such hearings and may in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, provide that subsection (4) above shall not have effect.

(7) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland—

(a) subsection (2) shall be omitted; and
(b) the reference in subsection (6) to section 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 shall be construed as a reference to sections 52 and 55 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978.'. —[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

r. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 9, 10, 274, 243 and 11.

The Solicitor-General: This new clause and these amendments deal with the need identified in Committee here and in another place to provide a review of an appeals mechanism in relation to orders by the court which either restrict or prevent reports of Crown court proceedings under section 4 and 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 or orders which restrict public access to the courts. As the House knows, there have been complaints that these powers have on occasions been misused and that currently no remedy exists, contrary, among other things, to our obligations under the European convention on human rights.
In Committee, the proposal provided merely for an opportunity for judicial review by means of an application for an order of certiorari in relation to orders under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, not for orders for hearings in camera. We promised to look again at this matter and to seek to provide a comprehensive and effective appeals mechanism which would meet our obligations under the European convention to provide a remedy on both these classes of orders. Several points of difficulty arise in relation to this matter, which explains why we have not come forward earlier with these proposals, but I am satisfied that the close attention that we have now given to the matter means that we have the right answer.
The major differences between the form of remedy now proposed and the one already in the Bill lie in its scope and form. The new clause will allow challenges to any order which restricts reporting of Crown court proceedings as well as any order which restricts access to those proceedings. Therefore, any aggrieved person—notably the press—can challenge the Contempt of Court Act orders, orders under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which prohibit the identification of children involved in trials concerning decency or morality, and orders for hearings in camera. The remedy will be available only against an order, not against a general statutory prohibition or a procedure which is not activated by a specific order of the court. In particular—this is obviously right —he procedure will not be available to challenge the anonymity of rape victims under section 4 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976.
The other major change is that, instead of providing for a judicial review, the new clause will establish a statutory right to appeal to the Court of Appeal criminal division in place of judicial review. That is wholly appropriate. First, the problems that we are meeting have arisen in the Crown court in the course of criminal trials and it is appropriate that appeals should be heard by judges who are familiar with the context in which the grounds for appeal arise. Secondly, the use of an appeal rather than a judicial review removes the possibility of future arguments on points of jurisdictional theory. There may be arguments now about how far a court of law can make an error of law within jurisdiction without being subject to judicial review. Such difficulties do not arise on an appeal.
The House will see from subsection (1) of the new clause that the appeal will be subject to a requirement of leave. That is standard in the criminal division and may work to an appellant's advantage. Leave must be sought from the Court of Appeal rather than from the Crown court judge. The Court of Appeal's decision will be final. That is to ensure that any possible disruption to the Crown court is minimised. The Court of Appeal criminal division can deal with these appeals promptly. The same cannot be said of appeals to the House of Lords, and we have looked


into that extremely carefully. In fairness to the accused and generally to the advantage of the administration of justice, we cannot risk delaying a criminal trial for long periods pending a second appeal.
Subsections (2) and (3) deal with the allocation of this business to the criminal division and provide that a criminal judge will decide questions of leave, as is usually the case, with the application for leave being renewable before a full Court of Appeal, should leave be refused.
Subsections (4), (5) and (6) give the criminal division new powers, which are important. These appeals will be structured like civil applications, as they are concerned with the assertion of rights rather than the punishment of offences. For this reason the criminal division must have a small civil code, giving it appropriate power to deal with these appeals. The single judge must have power to order that documents, particularly any transcripts of an application for a hearing in camera, should be produced to the media so that they can pursue their remedy. Further —this is an important point—he must have power to guide or determine who should be a party to the appeal and how they should be served with process.
To illustrate the importance of that, the single judge may consider it impossible for an appeal to be determined unless a witness who has benefited from the order complained of this before the court. If that witness has given or is to give evidence in camera, the press may not even know his name, let alone his address for service. Directions from the single judge, given at the leave stage, can solve these procedural problems. Subsection (4) allows for these directions to be given.
The full Court of Appeal will also need new powers as the criminal division will be asked to deal with business other than appeals against conviction or sentence. Subsection (6) gives it powers to confirm, reverse or vary decisions, or to make orders as to costs. Subsection (6) also empowers the Court of Appeal to stay other proceedings —in effect, the Crown court trial—pending an appeal. That step should be avoided wherever possible in the interests of justice. However, there may well be cases where it would be manifestly unjust to allow the Crown court trial to continue before the appeal is resolved. Therefore, it is proper to allow judges of the Court of Appeal power to do what is best in each individual case.
Subsection (5) gives the appellants the right to adduce evidence before the Court of Appeal. That is important, as the likely appellants, who are the press, will not have had any prior opportunity to put their case.
That summarises the parts of the new clause which will shape the general nature of this procedure. Rules of court will spell out specific steps. Basically, the press will launch an appeal within a short time limit of about seven days and seek leave from a single judge. The judge may grant leave immediately on seeing the papers or the press may seek an appointment to ask for the production of transcripts or, for example, directions for substituted service. If leave is granted, the appeal will be argued before a full court in the usual way. Appointments will be given as promptly as possible, and it is intended that rules of court will give appellants an express right to apply for the procedure to be expedited.
The House will see that subsection (7) makes provision for a special procedure. I should perhaps say an

"exceptional" procedure, because the vast majority and possibly all the appeals brought under this new provision will follow the procedure just outlined. However, a small sub-class of cases heard in camera will involve information of high sensitivity. For example, matters of national security may arise or information may be brought out which will identify and hence put at risk a member of the security forces. The Government must protect information such as this, and any prosecutor whose evidence includes such information must be able to establish conclusively before leading any evidence that his case will be heard in camera. Orders for hearings in camera will be open to challenge in such cases, but the form of appeal will be private.
The prosecution will give public notice of an intention to apply for the hearing to be held in camera. That will be given before the start of the trial so that the time gap between public notice and the trial corresponds to the time limit for appeal. That will allow the press to consider whether it wishes to challenge the order, if it is made. The prosecution will apply for the hearing to be in camera at the very start of the criminal trial and will seek an adjournment until the next day. The press will thus have the rest of that first day in which to file and serve notice of appeal. If the press appeals, the whole process will be conducted by the Court of Appeal in private. Under that procedure an appellant will not have to specify ground for appeal, which is, of course, an advantage to the appellant, but he will not be entitled to any information to assist in the conduct of his appeal, for reasons which are self-evident, nor will he appear before the court.
The Court of Appeal, both at the leave stage and when considering the substantive appeal, will review the papers that were before the Crown court judge and any available transcripts and will inform the appellant of its decision. In that way, highly sensitive information will be protected, the press will have a remedy and we will avoid putting the prosecutor in an impossible position, as he will not have to lead any evidence until he has established that there will be no appeal or knows its result.
As I have said, no one should think that this exceptional procedure will form a large part of the appeal procedure. It is designed primarily to protect information concerning national security. It may be that the press will recognise the existence of national security issues and decline to appeal in those cases, in which case the special procedure will never be used. In any case, it will be rare for the prosecution to resort to that system.
Almost all appeals brought under this clause will concern ordinary criminal trials, the sort of trials in which it has been suggested that the court's powers have been misused in the past, and so will be determined after a full hearing in the usual way. It is, however, necessary and responsible to make provision for those new exceptional cases where our national security may be at risk.
The remainder of the new clause makes some necessary adaptations to the clause and consequential amendments to facilitate its application to Northern Ireland, together with consequential amendments to the long title.

Mr. Peter Archer: We begin this debate on a less controversial note than in some of the exchanges that have occurred in the House over the past few days.

Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie): Speak for yourself.

Mr. Archer: I am sincere about that, even if I do not carry all my hon. Friends with me.
We are grateful to the Solicitor-General for having responded to our representations, for the thought that he and the Lord Chancellor have obviously given to the problem and for the clear way in which he has expounded the proposals. I appreciate the difficulties when notes are passed to him, but perhaps I could have his full attention. I am sure that he will appreciate that a great deal of what he said is new to us and that we will need a little time to consider some of these matters because they are difficult matters and, as he said, they seek to strike a balance. In some circumstances, I might have been content to leave the matter there, but as today the House is not under the same time constraints as on some other occasions, he will forgive me if I press him a little and perhaps add a few of my own reflections.
I recollect that when I, the Solicitor-General and my right hon. and learned Friend for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) served on the Standing Committee on the Contempt of Court Act 1981, one matter, on which I am sure we were all agreed, was that normally the course of justice should be open. Unless there are good reasons to the contrary, the public have a right to know what is going on. That is healthy for the courts, for the judicial service, for the legal profession and certainly for those who have occasion to litigate there.
That is a principle which Opposition Members have invoked from time to time and will no doubt continue to do so, but it has emerged, particularly over the past few years, that some matters may be mentioned in court which cannot be made public because it would not be in the public interest to disclose them. Certainly, it would be oppressive to some individuals if there were no power to inhibit them, so I accept that judges must have that power.
We are indebted to the Guild of British Newspaper Editors and to the National Council for Civil Liberties for a recent survey in which they inquired of 200 newspaper editors in England and Wales about secrecy orders of various kinds that were made in their local courts. The questionnaire related to about 70 Crown courts. They discovered, for example, that in 15 courts editors had experienced use of the common law power, which we discussed in Committee and which had been rather overlooked by the Government in the early stages of the Bill.
The survey's conclusions were quite interesting. Its first conclusion commented on the extent to which Crown courts depart from the open justice principle. Its second conclusion referred to the wide use made of postponement orders. I agree with the comment muttered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) that a postponement order can mean death for a newspaper story. It is no use reporting on Wednesday something that happened on Monday morning. There was a particular problem about that and about the use of section 39 orders under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.
The survey came to what I thought was a surprising conclusion: that, given the number of restriction orders, it is inevitable that some appear to be inappropriate and even unlawful. I am sure that the survey was trying to be fair, but I do not accept that it is inevitable that judges will sometimes make such orders without considering whether they are lawful.
The survey also concluded that the absence of an official record of restriction orders makes it difficult to keep the orders under review. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will tell us what consideration has been given to some form of official record of restriction orders so that we know how many have been made, where they have been made and the general pattern of when and how they have been made.
The survey further concluded that there is a noticeable lack of consistency between regions in the use of restriction orders. Judges are human and justice is not administered by computer, so it is inevitable that there will not be total consistency, but there should be some attempt to achieve consistency in that matter.
The Solicitor-General mentioned that such matters will now be heard by the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, where we hope to obtain some guidance on those matters. But it may not be too much to ask also for occasional judicial conferences about the use of such orders of the kind which now exist to introduce consistency into sentencing. The survey concluded finally that there is a lack of uniformity in the manner by which courts make known the existence of restriction orders.
We should devote attention to all those matters, as they are not all met by the new clause. Mr. Keith Parker, the current president of the Guild of Newspaper Editors and editor of the Wolverhampton Express and Star, which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of State and I hold close to our hearts, made a number of cogent comments. He said that it simply was not good enough for the Government to maintain that Crown court judges never made unlawful orders. Clearly, the Government no longer maintain that, and, to that extent, we have all relaxed.
I want to add this point as a measure of balance, and I can do this in the case of Mr. Parker simply because he and I know each other so well. It is not only judges who occasionally get these things wrong. Sometimes newspapers are not beyond criticism in the way in which they report current legal proceedings. I remember a distinguished predecessor of Mr. Parker in both the offices that Mr. Parker now holds. Mr. Clem Jones, whom we all held in great affection, in trying to establish the responsibility shown by local newspapers in reporting legal proceedings, once induced his wife, Dr. Marjorie Jones, to conduct a survey on how that had been done. If I remember correctly, that survey assisted her to gain her doctorate. She was kind enough to send me a copy of her book. Her report was a devastating indictment of the way in which many local newspapers reported legal proceedings.
6 pm
The survey showed that the prospect of proceedings being reported has very little to do with factors such as the public interest in their being known or the public thirst for serious information about what happened in those proceedings. Rather, they are reported because people were interested in the identity of people involved, whether they related to royalty, whether they were physically attractive, information about their ages and matters of that kind. I am sure that Mr. Parker will forgive me if I emphasise what the Solicitor-General properly said —that there is a genuine balance to be maintained.
As I have said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon and I served together in Committee on the Contempt of Court Act 1981. At that time we had not considered carefully some of the problems because


none of us believed that they existed. If I recall correctly, it emerged while the Committee was sitting that such problems did exist. There was a notorious blackmail case in which an attempt by the judge to restrict publication of the names of the complainants was disregarded, with devastating consequences for the complainants. That was a serious matter, in which the press behaved irresponsibly. Unhappily, that case emerged rather too late to be considered by the Phillimore committee which led to the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The case arose just in time for sections 4 and 11 to be added to the 1981 Act, but not early enough for us to reflect on the implications as carefully as we would have done had we had a little more time.
We hoped that the problem would be dealt with, as the Solicitor-General said, by the procedure of judicial review. However, the House will recall that in the Ponting trial it was proposed that there should be a daily television programme keeping the public abreast of the course of the trial, which would take the somewhat dramatic form of a representation of the trial with actors, whom I am certain would have been paid-up members of Equity, taking the parts of the various characters in the trial.
An order was made by the judge under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibiting the showing of that programme until after the trial had finished. It is not for me to embark on a discussion of whether that was a proper order to make, but I am bound to say that I was not surprised that the order was made. An attempt was made to have the matter reviewed by judicial review. Whatever the merits of the order, it was clearly right that someone should be able to review the decision of a judge of first instance.
It was pointed out that section 29 (3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 prohibits a review of
matters relating to trial on indictment".
The Court of Appeal held that the matter related to trial on indictment, and it would have been surprising if it had reached any other decision.
An earlier case involved an order being made under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibiting the naming of certain witnesses in which Lord Justice Stephen Brown, before his happy translation to further office, holding again that there was no power of judicial review, expressed sincere regret that that was the case.
Those problems confronted the Government when this Criminal Justice Bill was introduced. They responded by introducing clause 151. I suspect, as the Solicitor-General has half hinted, that they introduced that partly to keep us straight with the European convention on human rights, because they did not want to accumulate too many difficulties in Europe, but I have no doubt that they introduced it also because they genuinely believed that something of this kind should be done. I would not dispute that. Having embraced the principle, there were shortcomings, which have already been honestly and openly elaborated by the Solicitor-General.
Another problem was that the proposal did not relate to orders made under the common law power, but only to orders made under sections 4 and 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. That is now rectified. But the new clause itself raises questions. I understand why what I would perhaps regard as an omission from the new clause was made. There is no appeal to the House of Lords. As I

understand it, that is because the House of Lords cannot necessarily guarantee a quick appeal. I cannot believe that such an appeal would arise in many cases. Perhaps we would not be inundated with applications for leave to appeal to another place, with all the resultant problems. However, I understand the reasoning behind this.
I thought to some extent that the Solicitor-General gave part of the answer. He said that where there was a proposal for an application to be made to hear something in camera, it was hoped that that would be decided by the prosecution early, and well before the date for the trial to begin. One would hope that the same thing might be said about applications for the orders that we are discussing.
One would hope that the prosecution would consider whether it was going to apply for an order. Normally an application would come from the prosecution. If an application is to come from the defence, it is not unreasonable to hope that defence lawyers would direct their minds to that question well before the trial opens. If that happens, an application could be dealt with on directions, and whatever appeals were required could take place and the whole matter could be settled before the trial opened. I am not sure whether I understood what the Solicitor-General said would happen if for some reason that could not be done, or someone had not considered an application. One consequence of this proposal is that the Crown prosecution service would need the manpower and resources to carry out this function.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that until the Crown prosecution service achieves the right degree of professional standards, by employing legally qualified people in Crown courts, there is no hope that people who do not have the degree of knowledge required in these matters will ever get round to doing what he has suggested?

Mr. Archer: I must not embark on too long a disquisition on the Crown prosecution service. But I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. Some day we may have the opportunity of a somewhat more extended debate on the CPS.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will elaborate on one point which he made, as I did not completely grasp what he said. I am sure that that is my fault, not his. I am not sure whether he said that it would not follow automatically that, because one of the orders was made, there would be an adjournment of the main proceedings until the appeal had been resolved. That is a little surprising.
I confess that when I first read new clause 71 I had not grasped the need to write something like that into it. But if there is a question whether an order has been lawfully and properly made, to proceed with the trial before that question has been resolved would destroy the whole point of raising it. There is no point in the media reporting proceedings five or six days after they have taken place. I understood the Solicitor-General to say that there will be discretion as to whether or not to proceed. I hope that it will usually be exercised in favour of open proceedings; otherwise, reporting opportunities could be totally destroyed.
I understand all the disadvantages of adjourning criminal proceedings. Any hon. Member who has been involved in them will know of the problems that arise when a date has been fixed and reserved by counsel, solicitors


and experts, and for which witnesses have been subpoenaed—and others may have postponed holidays —and someone then applies for an adjournment. But it could be equally serious if the trial proceeded before matters were resolved; and I hope that appeals will be resolved early by the Court of Appeal. A problem could arise in relation to the House of Lords, and I understand the Solicitor-General's difficulties in that respect, all though I am not sure they would be as great in practice as he foresees.
The Government have responded to our representations and have obviously given them considerable thought. It would he churlish of me if I were to do other than to thank the Solicitor-General for his comments and actions. Over a period we shall see how this provision works, and, having done so, it may be that we will reassess them later.

Mr. Greville Janner: I associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and will add only two points. First, I am concerned about the time element. I understood the Solicitor-General to say that seven days would be allowed in which to lodge an appeal. What will happen to the trial meanwhile, after the appeal is lodged and before it is heard? Will there be a break in the trial, and will the jury be left to go home? Will the accused be left with misery hanging over his or her head in the knowledge that, as an accused person, he or she is presumed to be innocent?
One of the greatest of trials in all trials is waiting for a verdict and for the end of the suspense. I cannot understand why a seven-day period should be allowed. The appeal should be heard within 24 hours at the very most, if not immediately. There should preferably be no suspension of the trial and immediate access to the Court of Appeal—if necessary before that court's normal proceedings begin or immediately afterwards, or a special court should be convened for the purpose. The delay allowed cannot work in practice.
Secondly, I have for many years been concerned with the agonies of innocent people who are tried and eventually found to be innocent but who meanwhile suffer hell on earth and find, especially if they are otherwise respectable people, that their lives have collapsed into ruins around them. I have dealt in particular with hundreds of cases involving alleged shoplifters, some 50 per cent. of whom, having been charged with that offence and pleaded not guilty, have been acquitted.
For many of them, the greatest misery lies in the reporting of the proceedings. It is essential that our courts should be open to the press, but it is essential also that the press should exercise their reporting rights with discretion and occasionally with compassion. There is no way in which discretion and compassion can be imposed upon the media, nor am I seeking to find such an impossible route. Nevertheless, I impress upon the House, and through it the press, the need to act with kindness, care and sensitivity and not, as happens, alas, on many occasions, deliberately keep open or reopen wounds in cases where people have slipped from the path we would have chosen for them.
New clause I is necessary for the freedom of the press, but it contains inherent difficulties. I hope that the Solicitor-General will assure the House that the question of the time limit will be dealt with in another place, where

it may be reconsidered, or in this House, if necessary by taking action to ensure that the workings of the clause are efficient and fair.

Mr. Bermingham: I regret missing the first few minutes of the Solicitor-General's remarks. The two points I wish to raise stem from the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), with whom I take issue.

Mr. Janner: As usual.

Mr. Bermingham: If there is to be a delay before the appeal can be heard, the trial must obviously be stayed for practical purposes. If an order has been refused, the damage can be done in the period before the hearing of the appeal against that refusal, and it is that damage that we seek to limit. The Solicitor-General well knows that a considerable number of cases occur annually—although that number may vary from year to year—where publicity can have the most damning effect on the parties involved. Such publicity may even relate to trials which have yet to begin and to related matters of that kind. Therefore, it is clear that the trial itself needs to be stayed until such time as the appeal against either the refusal or the granting of an order has been heard.
An appeal could be heard in less than seven days, but practical experience from both sides of the fence suggests that to proceed within 24 hours is likely to be impracticable, bearing in mind that it is usually solicitors who will have to draw up most of the paperwork. Solicitors are often misunderstood by the Bar with regard to the amount of work that is necessary in such cases. Solicitors must be given proper time in which to draft the grounds of an appeal and complete all the necessary paperwork.
A court of appeal will take both oral and written evidence. I shall return to the words "in writing" later, because they concern me. Evidence will have to be gathered by both parties to the appeal, but much as the will is often there to proceed expeditiously, sheer practical common sense tells me that one day is not enough time in which to marshal the arguments and witnesses required, though perhaps it could be done in four or five working days. It may be that the party who seeks to appeal against an order made on a Friday will have a racing advantage in having the Saturday and Sunday to get on with matters, because the proceedings will naturally be stayed over the weekend.
I ask the Solicitor-General carefully to reconsider those aspects and the practicalities involved. If he is minded to alter the time limit, I hope he will bear in mind that those who have to prepare the paperwork need to be given reasonable time in which to do so. They need also an opportunity to locate and procure their witnesses.
I turn to the question of the witnesses themselves. In a contested matter, written evidence is extremely difficult 10 cross-examine, and it may often lead the court into a misunderstanding about the nature of certain matters. I am very much against appeals being heard by way of affidavits. If the written evidence of affidavit is withdrawn, the other side is given the opportunity to file a counter-affidavit. How on earth is one to know what questions to pose to a witness whose evidence is only in writing?
Perhaps the Solicitor-General will be kind enough carefully to reconsider his thoughts on "in writing"—at least, they were in the draftsman's mind—for one would hate to see develop a practice whereby the arguments made by one side or the other in such appeals degenerated into a circus-like operation of standard written letters. That is something that we have seen in the past. One tends to have the same sort of evidence time after time and, if there is no right to challenge, that can create a dangerous precedent.
I end, as I began, with a plea that any time given should be reasonable so that those who prepare the work have time in which to do it efficiently and expeditiously.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for his welcome for the new clause and the amendments. He rightly mentioned the Guild of British Newspaper Editors, and we are grateful to it for its constructive criticism and ideas. It has had to live with the problem as it has developed over the years and it is common ground that it has developed rather more than we anticipated when the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I served on the Committee which considered the Contempt of Court Act 1981. May I also mention the constructive attitude of Mr. Tim Crook, who has been closely involved in the matter?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether the terms of the order were recorded and whether any central record was kept of the number of occasions on which orders of this nature were made. The terms of the orders are recorded but, as I said in Committee, there is not a central record, and until we become more computerised it will be understood that it would not only be costly but administratively burdensome, if not prohibitive, to try to keep a central record.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman urged that, through judicial conferences or other methods, steps should be taken to encourage consistency in the way that the powers under the Act and the common law powers should be used. That is a matter for the judge, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that it will be open to the Court of Appeal under its new powers to give guidance through guideline cases, if it thinks it appropriate, as it does in other criminal matters. It will also be open to the Judicial Studies Board, through the conferences at Roehampton and elsewhere, to give guidance and to encourage consistency. That is a matter for the judges——

Mrs. Ann Taylor: As a non-lawyer, I am somewhat hesitant to intervene, but, as I understand it, if there are restriction orders on reporting cases in the magistrates court, the appeal there goes to the divisional court. Here we are dealing with the Crown court and the appeal goes to the Court of Appeal. How does the Solicitor-General intend to ensure consistency there? A case could start in the magistrates court and one decision could be made there, and a later, different decision could be made when the case reached the Crown court.

The Solicitor-General: I think that the answer is that the president of the divisional court is the Lord Chief Justice and he has a close control over the Court of Appeal, criminal division. We are dealing with High Court judges who frequently move from one division to the other and they will all come together in their interests through the

Judicial Studies Board. Therefore, the opportunities for consistency at a high level present no difficulties. I hope that that is of comfort.
We fully understand the importance to the press of the ability to report contemporaneously, but equally, when one comes to deal with the matter of principle, a balance needs to be struck. That balance was rightly referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) who pointed out the hardship that is caused to a defendant in a criminal case by delay. There is also the public interest in the administration of criminal justice which does not brook delay without an overwhelming reason. Consequently, it would be wrong to think that there should be an adjournment in every case.
Although the ability to report contemporaneously is understood, the fundamental right that we wish to protect is the ability to report at all when an order has been given in a case where the Court of Appeal subsequently decides that it should not have been given and where currently many would argue that an order was misplaced. Consequently, it must be a matter for the courts, in weighing the circumstances of the individual cases, to decide whether there should be an adjournment.
Before I forget, I want to make a point in relation to my opening speech. When we were drawing up the new clause we made a drafting amendment which caused us to drop a technical point that was mentioned in a previous subsection (3). For the benefit of those who may read my speech in Hansard,it should be known that I referred to some subsections incorrectly. I draw attention to that to avoid confusion.

Mr. Archer: Before the Solicitor-General leaves the problem of the dilemma of whether to adjourn, does he agree that that dilemma could frequently be avoided with adequate foresight on the part of those who want to make the application? Will he emphasise that?

The Solicitor-General: Yes, I agree with that.
I thought that I detected the thrust of spurs into hobby horses when the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred to the Crown prosecution service. The service has had its problems, and still does, but they are being overcome in a way that I think is widely recognised in the courts. It will well understand the importance of seeking to make applications early, and will have that very much in mind.
We discussed the matter of time limits. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, East must leave shortly. I can see the good sense in seeking to appeal within 24 hours, but the hon. Member for St. Helens, South rightly pointed out the practical difficulties of making it a requirement. There is no problem from the point of view of the legislation, because the time limit will be dealt with by rules of court, so there is an opportunity to listen to and consider the points made in the debate. However, seven days is more realistic than 24 hours as a matter of rule, although 24 hours would be desirable as a matter of practice wherever it is possible.

Mr. Bermingham: Will the Solicitor-General undertake to bear in mind the point that I made about the dangers of written evidence?

The Solicitor-General: If I understood the hon. Gentleman's point aright, he was anxious about written evidence being forced upon people or used generally. The


opportunity to introduce written evidence must be an advantage. The requirement to do so is limited. The only case where there is no option but to make a written submission is in the special category of case, perhaps one involving high security, where obviously the appellant cannot be apprised of the reason or the purpose of holding it in camera would be overborne. But that is not so much a matter of evidence as of submission. However, I shall certainly draw his point to the attention of those involved. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 72

TORTURE

'(1) A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever his nationality, commits the offence of torture if in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties.

(2) A person not falling within subsection (1) above commits the offence of torture, whatever his nationality, if—

(a) in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence—

(i) of a public official; or
(ii) of a person acting in an official capacity; and
(b) the official or other person is performing or purporting to perform his official duties when he instigates the commission of the offence or consents to or acquiesces in it.

(3) It is immaterial whether the pain or suffering is physical or mental and whether it is caused by an act or an omission.

(4) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in respect of any conduct of his to prove that he had lawful authority, justification or excuse for that conduct.

(5) For the purposes of this section "lawful authority, justification or excuse" means—

(a) in relation to pain or suffering inflicted in the United Kingdom, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the part of the United Kingdom where it was inflicted;
(b) in relation to pain or suffering inflicted outside the United Kingdom-—

(i) if it was inflicted by a United Kingdom official acting under the law of the United Kingdom or by a person acting in an official capacity under that law, lawful authority, justification or excuse under that law;
(ii) if it was inflicted by a United Kingdom official acting under the law of any part of the United Kingdom or by a person acting in an official capacity under such law, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the part of the United Kingdom under whose law he was acting; and
(iii) in any other case, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the place where it was inflicted.

(6) A person who commits the offence of torture shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.'. —[Mr. John Patten.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will he convenient to take Government new clauses 73 to 76 and Government amendments Nos. 12 to 19.

Mr. Patten: The new clauses and amendments, which I believe are welcome to the Opposition, create a new offence of torture. They provide that a public official or someone acting in an official capacity—or acting with the consent or acquiescence of an official or such person—commits an offence of torture if he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering in the performance or purported performance of his official duties. "Pain or suffering" for the purposes of the new clauses and amendments includes both physical and mental pain or suffering.
The offence is committed whether the pain or suffering is inflicted in or outside the United Kingdom. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment. Proceedings can be taken with the consent of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. That of course is not necessary in Scotland, where procurators fiscal undertake prosecutions on behalf of the Lord Advocate. Alternatively, the person can be extradited to be tried or, if already convicted, punished abroad.
The new clauses and amendments will enable the Government to ratify the United Nations convention on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1984. The Government have been looking for some time for an opportunity to implement the convention. We did not originally intend to do it in this Bill, but the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer)—on whose head compliments have been raining this afternoon—spotted an opportunity in it, and suggested a series of amendments giving effect to the convention. He spoke to them in Committee, and they were welcomed then. We were delighted to find that we could move forward on a sound and firm basis of all-party support. The new clauses and amendments give effect to the commitment that I gave the Committee to consider the matter further, and to table proposals on Report.
I must make it clear to Opposition Members that neither the convention nor the new clauses and amendments will operate retrospectively. They will apply only to offences committed two months after Royal Assent. The purpose of our accession to the convention is not to instigate a sort of retrospective witch-hunt against those alleged to have committed torture in the past, and the new clauses and amendments would not make such a witch-hunt possible.
I remind the House that, as many are aware, 1988 is the 40th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights, and it is fitting that we should try to mark that anniversary by ratifying the UN convention on torture. If the House accepts the new clause and the Bill completes its progress as we expect it to, we should be able to ratify the convention before the end of 1988.

Mr. Archer: The Minister and I will find ourselves in disfavour with our respective Whips Offices if we exchange too many compliments this evening, but we are grateful to him for responding so generously to the suggestions that we made in Committee and fulfilling the promise that he made to us then. In fact, I rather suspect that in Committee he was fulfilling a promise that he had already made to the press. It was, I am sure, no part of his intention that the reports which appeared in the press about the Government's intentions made no reference to the fact that that was in response to an invitation from the


Opposition. But perhaps our reward will be in the hereafter. I must not be ungenerous or ungracious, because the Minister has been the reverse of that.

Mr. John Patten: If indeed such a thing has happened, I hope that I have made it right tonight through the compliments that I have paid the right hon. and learned Gentleman in bumpers before a crowded Press Gallery.

Mr. Archer: I at once acknowledge the handsome way in which the Minister has behaved, and his great kindness to me personally.
This, as the House will know, is something of which I have dreamt for many years. In the early 1970s, when I was chairman of the British section of Amnesty International, Amnesty was appalled by the number of cases that we encountered of the most horrifying torture. It was performed not in a state of excitement by someone carried away by the enthusiasm of the moment, not by some minor official ignoring instructions, but as an instrument of Government policy, and it was taking place in an alarming number of countries.
Of course, it was not usually called torture; the more squeamish countries gave it a different name. In Northern Ireland it was referred to as "interrogation procedures". The House will recall the Parker report and the minority report of Lord Gardiner, which was so compelling that it produced an immediate change in Government policy. There are, however, degrees in these matters. The context in which the events in Northern Ireland took place has unhappily been recalled by the events of yesterday and our discussions today. Certainly those "interrogation procedures" were not of the same order as some of the practices that came to light in certain countries.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that since the Bennett report, and the implementation of the reforms that Bennett suggested, the interrogation procedures conducted in Northern Ireland today are a model to most of the police forces in the world and can in no way be likened to torture?

Mr. Archer: This is the last occasion on which I would wish to appear ungracious or fail to acknowledge the magnificent work which the RUC normally carries out, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not tempt me too far. There is still cause for anxiety in some cases, and if he and I cannot agree on that, this may not be the time to resolve our disagreements. In general, I agree with what he has said.
Amnesty International decided that an essential part of achieving its purpose was to conduct a campaign for an express declaration by the international community that torture was in no circumstances an acceptable instrument of policy, however desirable or undesirable that policy might be. Amnesty set out to persuade the member states of the United Nations to draft and adopt an international convention which would make a clear declaration and which, even if it did not always have effective teeth, would at least try to ensure that torture was more difficult to conceal. That led to the United Nations convention on torture.
As the Minister has told us, the United Kingdom has not yet ratified the convention. I accept that that is partly

because the United Kingdom does not ratify conventions lightly. It does not do so until our domestic law is in a position for us to comply, and it does not assume that the House will automatically pass that law. There is always that element of delay, whichever party is in government. That has the unfortunate effect that, unless there is a sense of urgency in all the Government Departments involved, the United Kingdom appears to be dragging its feet.
I do not believe that ratification will make much difference to the practice in this country, for some of the reasons that the Minister has given. I hope that we shall never again see practices here which are relevant to the convention, but it may help at least to reinforce the solidarity of the international community.
I do not wish to appear nit-picking this afternoon. The one matter on which I am a little hesitant about the Government's draftsmanship is the reference to 
lawful authority, justification or excuse
for conduct that would otherwise amount to torture. There is lawful justification or authority if somebody is acting in accordance with the law of this country or the law of the country where it is taking place. By definition, we are talking about intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering on another person. I cannot think offhand of any part of the law of the United Kingdom that would make such conduct lawful. If there were, I would be the first to move that we repeal it. I am not sure why that has been included. I hope that in his reply the Minister will say a little about it.
But I think that the new clause will greatly reinforce the unanimity of the international community. I hope that the fact that the United Kingdom is taking this step will lead to a great deal of pleasure and relief from anxiety both in this country and in all countries where torture is still a live issue and where the victims, at least, will welcome the support of the caring world.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister as well as the new clause. I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), who has waged a campaign on this issue for many years. He must be greatly gratified that he has won his point and that the Government have introduced the new clause. I support it, but I hope that it will not be interpreted outside the House as having been placed on the statute book because it is needed in this country. It is not.
There has been no evidence of torture in Britain. It is true that from time to time police officers and members of the security forces may, through an excess of enthusiasm, have committed actions that can be complained about. However, an excess of enthusiasm can be checked and is checked by the proper application of the disciplinary code and of the criminal law. All police officers are responsible for their deeds to the criminal law and to their disciplinary code.
There is no evidence of any policy having been conducted by any Government at any time that would have permitted torture in this country. It ought to be made clear that the House will assent to the inclusion of my hon. Friend's new clause in the Bill because we accept that there should be consistency of practice internationally and that many other countries have introduced measures of this kind. I support the new clause because it enables the United Kingdom to stand with other nations. I do not in any way support it because I believe that Britain has a problem that needs to be dealt with by legislation.
There are hon. Members, perhaps a majority, including the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, who feel that there is a case for a Bill of Rights.

Mr. Archer: rose——

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Perhaps I do the right hon. and learned Gentleman an injustice?

Mr. Archer: Simply for the record, may I say that I am not included among that number.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am delighted to hear it, because I am one of those who stand with the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, in believing that a nation that needs to write a Bill of Rights into its statute law is in peril of losing its civil rights. To that extent, I slightly regret the fact that we need to state that we are opposed to torture. Had I not risen to my feet, the new clause might have suggested that we were dealing with a problem that exists in Britain. It does not exist in Britain. I welcome the new clause and support it because it allows us to take our place among the international community of nations which condemn torture whenever they can.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: On behalf of the official Opposition, I welcome the new clause. It is a tidied-up version of the new clause that was tabled in Committee by the Opposition, and we are pleased to see it on the Amendment Paper in its correct form. Therefore, it is acceptable to the Opposition.
I associate myself with the congratulations that have been offered to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). He has done a great deal of work over many years, on behalf of Amnesty International, and has ensured that the problem was constantly placed before the House. If hon. Members did not do such work, measures of this kind would not reach the statute book. My right hon. and learned Friend has made a positive contribution to our statute law.
My right hon. and learned Friend's remarks about the Minister were slightly generous. The Minister was simply responding to suggestions that were made in Committee by the Opposition, particularly by my right hon. and learned Friend. As he pointed out, we read, as usual, the Minister's press release before we received his official response. Nevertheless, we have made progress.
I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend discussed this matter without giving lurid details about various types of torture in many parts of the world. Had it been many other hon. Members, we might have had a debate that concentrated on colourful and horrific details. We should be grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for showing that hard work and hard persuasion in a very good cause can lead us forward. We should pay tribute to him and recognise the work that he has done.
The Government are making only a small degree of progress, but it is right that the Opposition should say where they stand. The new clause reinforces our solidarity with other countries and the general intention. It is a step forward and we are grateful to the Minister for introducing it, as he promised in Committee to do.

.6.45 pm

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: At first sight, it would surprise most people to hear that we need any such addition as this new clause to our legislative armoury. The truth is that we do not. The British criminal law already punishes torture and therefore prevents torture. Because we live in a democratic society in which, under all Governments, there is the rule of law and an honourable police force, it is almost impossible in our recent history to discover any case of torture. However, it is not superfluous to introduce this measure, particularly on the 40th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. This country, and particularly this Government, are in the forefront of international activity to try to create greater respect worldwide for human rights.
Whenever the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs goes abroad—I speak from experience as a member of the Committee—it always asks for a brief from Amnesty International and it always raises human rights issues in any country that it visits. The unfortunate fact is that half the nations of the world practise some form or some degree of torture. It does not seem to matter whether they are signatories of the international convention on human rights. They still practise torture but they pretend that they do not. It is for a country such as Britain, which is democratic, has a free press and a high respect for the rules of international law and human decency, to press these matters as widely as it can.
We are indebted to Amnesty International for the influence that it exerts. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) was one of the founders in 1961 of the British branch of Amnesty International. It has a membership of about 44,000; worldwide it has a membership of 1,750,000. During the past two years, Amnesty International has doubled its membership in Britain. It has called consistently for the kind of measure that the Govenment are introducing into this Bill.
Therefore, it is also a tribute to Amnesty International and the wonderful work that it does that this Government, who of all Governments might have thought that it was superfluous for us to be expected to introduce such a measure into our law, have taken the lead of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and introduced it into our law. It is a signal to the rest of the world that we in Britain mean business in human rights and that we will go on trying to ensure that torture, wherever it exists throughout the world, in any country over which we have any influence, is eliminated. Because it is a good thing, and because there is nothing bad that one can say about the step that the Government are taking, I, and I expect all hon. Members, enthusiastically welcome the new clause.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I intend to emulate the brevity of the speeches that we have heard in the debate. I begin by associating myself with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) about the contribution of Amnesty International, recognising the assiduity with which it briefs hon. Members and the care with which it ensures that these matters are kept high in our consideration.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not think I am being churlish if I challenge him on his assertion that there is such a thing as the British criminal law. Of course there is the English criminal law, of which he is an


eloquent exponent, and there is the Scottish criminal law, derived from an entirely different source, which shares certain characteristics with the Anglo-Saxon system, but which is by no means precisely the same. It now appears that some of the things that we have taken for granted are being adopted as a matter of novelty into the English system.
My principal purpose in intervening is to associate myself with the observations of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) about subsection (4). Like him, I am exercised by the idea that there can be a defence to the crime of torture. Like him, I am concerned at the notion that there might be circumstances in which the infliction of torture could be regarded as being carried out with lawful authority, in circumstances which could be described as a justification or in circumstances for which there could be an excuse.
My concern is, first, at the notion that there needs to be a defence at all, and, secondly, at the particular elements of that defence, which appear to be available as alternatives—if I read the contents of subsection (5) correctly. The Minister should deal with those matters when he responds to the debate, because, for some of us at least, there are still some apprehensions as to precisely why the defence is necessary and in what circumstances the Minister conceives that the defence might legitimately be prayed in aid.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I am sorry that I cannot join in the general rush to welcome the new clause. One is bound to ask certain questions about it. For example, why, never before in the whole of our legal history, has it been necessary to make torture a crime in the law of this country? There is a very good reason why we have not yet had to do that. Normally, in this country, the acts or omissions which constitute what others would call torture are criminal, and people who conduct themselves in such a way as to come within that category are proceeded against, and have been since time immemorial. So why on earth are we now saying that we must have a separate offence of torture?
When the Minister has finished his conversation with his PPS and can pay attention to what I am saying, I should like to ask him what part of our law at the moment does not cover the evidence, facts and misconduct which new clause 72 is intended to cover.

Mr. Lawrence: That is not the point.

Mr. Stanbrook: My hon. and learned Friend says that that is not the point, but so much bad law is enacted out of a genuine attachment to abstract principles of justice, humanity and human rights that very often the point of view expressed by my hon. and learned Friend covers more than it should cover. My objection is that we should not legislate so broadly. We should consider much more carefully, not only the principle of the crime as defined, but all the ramifications included in the new clause.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my hon. Friend explain whether it would be possible for us to ratify the United Nations convention on torture and other degrading and inhuman acts without the new clause?

Mr. Stanbrook: That is the substance of the question that I addressed to my hon. Friend the Minister. What is

there in the convention that we could not ratify, even without incorporating the terms of the convention, or something similar to it, into our domestic law? Most of the offences covered by the new clause would constitute crimes under our existing law. That is why some United Nations and other multinational conventions that Britain has ratified have not required specific legislation in this country to enable us to do so.

Mr. David Ashby: Has my hon. Friend considered the vast number of instances where no physical harm is caused but where something cruel or degrading, or where an omission to do something, has put someone in fear? I know that he is a lawyer. Can he think of any offence that could be commited under the existing law under those circumstances? I do not think that there is any such offence. Has he considered whether mental cruelty or torture is covered by the new clause? That is not a positive offence. It is not an offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which I know he has in mind. It is covered by the new clause, and it would be torture.

Mr. Stanbrook: With great respect to my hon. Friend and to our mutual profession, he is suffering from the idea that imprecise language will help us attain our objective. The very words "mental cruelty" are capable of many definitions and could apply to many different examples of behaviour. Not every individual case of mental cruelty that we meet in the divorce courts would constitute a crime, still less a crime capable of being punished by a life sentence of imprisonment, or capable of extradition, on proof of mental cruelty such as is established in divorce courts, for example. Should we go to that extent?

Mr. Ashby: No.

Mr. Stanbrook: My hon. Friend says no, and I entirely agree with him. That is just why we must be careful. In new clause 72 the definition of torture applies
whether the pain and suffering is physical or mental".
That must cover a multitude of actions by individuals. Although we know precisely what we are talking about in individual cases, many of us would agree that this is nowhere near what we would consider to be serious torture such as we have now decided to embody in this formidable legislation at the behest of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and some of his hon. Friends. We are being led astray.
7 pm
Another example of the undesirability of tackling this problem in this way is new clause 74, which provides that we shall extradite someone to any country that has ratified this convention, whatever that country's laws and whatever its justification, based on the facts of the case. Some countries regard an offence against humanity as serious. We all agree that such offences sound serious and would justify the most serious punishment, but the notion is so ill-defined that it would be quite wrong for us to extradite a British citizen to face trial in any of the countries that operate a law such as this, which is so ill-defined and vague that it is almost a catch-all provision for any conduct of which the country disapproves.
We all agree that torture is, or should be, criminal, but when it comes to defining or changing our law to embrace that principle in the way that is proposed here, we create great problems for ourselves.

Mr. Sayeed: My hon. Friend's argument is that everything in the new clause is already covered by the criminal law, of which he is an eminent practitioner, while I am a layman. However, would torture of the sensory deprivation sort be covered by our present law?

Mr. Stanbrook: I correct my hon. Friend. I did not say what he has alleged. I asked whether the new clause covered anything new. That is precisely what I asked the Minister, who is the one who can answer the question.
We rush too quickly into adopting great declarations of principle. Ours is the country that least needs to force upon itself provisions about human rights such as this. For centuries this country of ours has led the world in the protection of human rights. The funny thing is that we are so anxious to live up to our standards—we cannot be blamed for this—that we adopt these grand declarations even when they are not necessary.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West said that, although the new clause did not apply to us, we should make it apply, for reasons of solidarity and the desirability of aligning ourselves with other states, to emphasise to them the importance of outlawing this offence. But the countries that need some sort of protection of human rights and against torture are the very ones that are the first to ratify declarations such as these, which is the nub of the problem. We shall achieve nothing, except to exhort other countries, by ratifying conventions of this kind. We can well do without instituting them in our domestic law ——

Mr. Archer: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that I said that one powerful argument for what we are doing —we are grateful to the Government for this—is that it will enable us to add our voice to what I hope will soon be international unanimity on this subject. I should not want it to be thought that the Opposition concede that there never has been any act in this country that would have been prosecuted under these provisions—or that there never could be. I make no such concession.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am glad to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, but it does not remove the basic objection to the new clause. This is one of those declarations of principle that are adopted "pour encourager les autres," and we do not need it. I accept that international solidarity in matters of this sort is desirable, but we must not mislead ourselves into thinking that by adopting this we show that our citizens need it, or that the mere ratification of this international convention by any other country will change its policies or give greater protection to its citizens. The countries that most need protection of human rights are those that have signed, or are rushing to sign, the convention. Other countries such as ours, that like to live up to standards such as these, have already done just that in the past.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Conservative Members are rather complacent to suggest that the ratification of this measure is only a matter of form to fit in with United Nations provisions, rather than something that we require to protect human rights in this country. New clause 72(3) provides:
It is immaterial whether the pain or suffering is physical or mental".
That means that when the courts come to act on this provision, a great deal of evidence that is relevant to mental and physical torture will start to be taken into

account. It is quite possible then that the evidence that is produced and the general climate of opinion among social experts and others will begin to affect the nature of the judgments that the courts make.
That is a defensive position and it ties in well with the experiences that have led the United Nations to draw up this convention. It was not just plucked out of thin air or from the worst experiences of the worst tyrannies. It deals with a problem that exists across the world, even within democratic societies—the more so as society becomes more complex and the methods used to torture people become more complex and specialised. So defences begin to be needed.
I recognise that this is still perceived as the ratification of the 1984 United Nations convention. That was adopted in December 1984, and although I welcome its inclusion in the new clause—that is the result of the views that the Labour party expressed in Committee, to which the Government have responded—the Minister should explain the delay involved. Why was not special legislation introduced at an earlier stage?
It has been said that lawful torture is still permitted. Article 1 of the convention states that it does not include
pain or suffering arising from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions".
New clause 72(4) merely elaborates that provision. However, without laws being passed to encourage torture, we should fear actions or practices that might lead to mental cruelty. I am not a solid and committed advocate of a Bill of Rights, but if we had legislation such as the convention for when pressures and difficulties arise we would have another measure to check our actions.
I should like the Minister to say why there is no retrospective element in the new clause. There were provisions in the Housing Bill, which we discussed at length, relating to consultation with housing action trusts, which could be regarded as being retrospective in character, although there is some dispute about its nature.

Mr. Ashby: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the new clause should be retrospective. Is he suggesting that somebody should be locked up for life for an offence that did not exist at the time when he committed it? That goes against every idea of civil rights.

Mr. Barnes: The convention was adopted in 1984. Many hon. Members claimed that it is unnecessary in this country because everything in the garden is lovely. A law that allows us to delve into the past and deal with unjust and unreasonable matters may be worthy of consideration. I am not putting that forward as an amendment or suggesting definite change, but I should like the Minister to give his reaction to that suggestion.
Article 10 of the convention states:
Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.
Many other articles refer to similar provisions. We are introducing a measure that the courts are expected to take into account, but at the same time we must ensure that the conditions that lead to those court cases being brought are not operating in society. Do the Government intend to introduce back-up provisions?
New clause 73 requires the consent of the Attorney-General the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland before the instigation of cases. Does that fit in with the convention, which allows for procedures whereby people can more freely use the courts to challenge the use of mental and physical torture against them?

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I welcome the new clause. That makes it an all-party welcome—at least from all the parties that were represented in Committee.
We had an interesting debate in Committee on ratifying the convention and changing the law to enable us to do so. It is right to welcome the Government's initiative and to thank the Minister for carrying out the undertaking that he gave in Committee.
I place on record my thanks to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for the tremendous work that he did to ensure that the new clause came before the House. I associate with those remarks the tremendous work done by Amnesty International.
I hope that there would be a unanimous welcome for the new clause. In fairness, I can say that it has received wide-ranging support from hon. Members. We have often criticised other countries that have used torture to obtain confessions, admissions and information. I believe that it was right to condemn such acts. It has been said that we do not need this provision, but we should not be complacent. There may have been occasions when it could have been used.
We shall be in a stronger position as a result of its being part of our criminal law, and I commend that view to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). We shall be in a stronger position to condemn acts of torture wherever they happen. If it is enshrined in our law and we ratify the convention, we shall have greater moral authority to condemn torture in other countries.
Congratulations are due to all those who have worked hard on this subject, and I am sure that that will be a source of tremendous pleasure to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley West.
There has been a small sub-theme to the debate, to which I do not ask the Minister to respond. We have heard that there may be no such thing as British law, but that there may be English and Scottish law. Where does that leave Wales?

Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for his indulgence. He clearly did not expect me to speak at this stage of the debate.
I should like to associate myself with the remarks made about my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), who has worked so hard for many years with Amnesty International, and who has been instrumental in the inclusion of the new clause in the Bill. It is quite a remarkable and rare achievement that hon. Members, in a single capacity, can change the law to its benefit with the consent and consensus of the whole House. My right hon. and learned Friend has joined the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), who brought about changes in the abortion law in 1967, and certain other hon. Members who have managed to change the law.
I think that it is right for me to put this on the record, because he and I shared Opposition Front-Bench responsibility on Northern Ireland for three years, and his libertarian instincts and devotion to the principles of Amnesty are salutary not only for all of us but for the international movement against torture in any of its forms. I thought that I should render homage—fi may use a French phrase translated into English—n behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West.
I am also glad to be in the House with such honourable company as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), because he and I have both spent some time on Northern Ireland affairs and on matters relating to the police. He has very strong libertarian instincts and has expressed them throughout many years in the House of Commons. One phrase in his speech that I noted and picked up was that torture does not exist in this country. That must be something for us to reflect upon in the troubled world in which we live. We see torture all around us. The IRA terrorist who was recently sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment amputated the thumbs of his kidnapped victims. That was not very far from our own shores.
I remember the early 1960s, when the Algerian war was going on with the French settlers, and torture was used against some of the fedayeen caught by the French paratroopers. That was a distasteful experience and showed the great difficulties of bringing a colonial empire to an end.
Europe, too, has known torture. We do not need to go further back than the last war to find refined torture used upon people in concentration camps. Whatever the outcome of the appeal of Mr. Demjanjuk in Israel, we have seen that torture is not far from our civilisation and is something that we have to cope with. When the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds says that torture does not exist in this country, we should be thankful.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, in his remarks about this country, would include Northern Ireland, because some of the appalling things that the IRA do there must qualify as torture.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's intervention. She would know, if she had spent, as I have, three years as a Front-Bench spokesman on Northern Ireland, that the first thing that one learns is that when we talk of "our country" and "this country," we are referring to the United Kingdom, which, of course, includes Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England.
The IRA has a record of death that is second to none, and all hon. Members have used the opportunities available to them to condemn that kind of degrading and inhuman treatment. Therefore, I certainly include Northern Ireland in my remarks in relation to torture.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who has left the Chamber, mentioned that we do not need the concept in the clause because there are already provisions in British criminal law to deal with those who inflict torture or degrading punishment upon our citizens. As he also said, this is the 40th year of the universal declaration of human rights.
Nevertheless, the fact that the Government have decided to adopt the terms of the convention into our law has a great deal of significance not only for us but for the


rest of Europe and the world. We still like to think of ourselves as leaders in certain areas, such as the humanitarian and liberal spheres. The fact that we are taking this issue of the convention seriously and placing it on our statute book is a sign to the rest of the world that we in this country, and certainly in the House of Commons, condemn torture in all forms and manifestations.
We are, nevertheless, as I said, in a world where torture still exists and there have been allegations of torture within certain member states of the Council of Europe. It is a great democratic principle that we should not only recognise that torture exists in other countries, but use our moral authority to bring pressure to bear upon those countries to aspire to the very high standards of our country.
I often think of the individual victim of torture—who may be in some solitary cell in a country in the near east. Who wonders what will happen to him, who is listening to his tiny voice, feels for him and is prepared to do something for him? The fact that the House is prepared to enact this clause is a message to those in authority, those who have power over others, those who inflict torture, that, as far as this country is concerned, they cannot and will not get away with it; that we shall use all the pressure that we can bring to bear to ensure that human rights are upheld in other countries.
There is also the European Committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, under the Privileges and Immunities Order 1988. This applies to all 21 member countries of the Council of Europe and requires seven ratifications. It has so far been ratified by Turkey in February 1988 and Ireland and Malta in March 1988. That committee has created the most sophisticated surveillance system for the prevention of torture. It is a committee of independent experts on human rights, and, when the convention has been ratified by all countries, it will be empowered to visit at any time any place of civil or military detention. The committee will also he able to make recommendations to the competent authorities. Therefore, by ratifying both the European convention and the United Nations convention, Her Majesty's Government are tonight showing their commitment to outlawing torture.
It is not for me to delay the House unduly by referring to the history of the European convention on human rights, which began with the Council of Europe in 1953 and entered into force in that year. It secured from member states commitments to promote human rights and recognise that individuals had rights under international law. Subsequently, it was realised that there ought to be preventive, non-judicial machinery related to the European convention.
Article 3 of the convention states:
no one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The committee was constituted as a result of that article, for the purpose of rooting out torture and bringing pressure to bear. We have therefore come into line with the United Nations convention and the European convention.
It is important that the treatment of torture in law keeps pace with technological advances, which can mean severe psychological suffering without any physical signs.
Turkey was the first country to ratify the convention. It is essential that the United Kingdom should play an active

role in relation to the convention to ensure that, in practice, the committee lives up to the original intentions of the Council of Europe.
I understand that the Organisation of American States is interested in a convention similar to the European convention, or would be interested in adopting the United Nations convention. Opposition Members are often critical of events in Central America, and certainly Latin America, where there have been many gruelling examples of torture, over which we have had no real influence and have no real control. If the House, by accepting the new clause and getting it on to the statute book, can assist Latin American countries to deal with torture in their own countries, that will be an important and significant step forward.

Mr. John Patten: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who has spoken so lucidly. I understand and appreciate his depth of knowledge and the care and consideration that he has given to the issues, particularly with his experience as a Front-Bench spokesman on Northern Ireland for three years.
I am glad that there has been a general though not complete welcome for the measure from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who spoke so generously from the Opposition Front Bench, from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), and particularly from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). Thanks to the hon. Gentleman and to the assiduous tutorials that I was given in Welsh pronunciation by the Welshman in Warrington, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler), I am now able to say Ynys Môn with complete self-confidence.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) used the word "torture" when referring to Northern Ireland. The European Court of Human Rights specifically held that we were not guilty of torture. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) referred clearly to this. It was held that there had been ill-treatment. My hon. Friend made it clear that the new codes of practice have not led to any complaint being upheld.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) were concerned about the words used in the drafting. The convention refers to
pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions".
The words used in the clause are the words which we think best fit the translation of the convention. I gave assurances to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West that we would try to import into British law the convention exactly as it stands. That is what we are trying to do by the use of those words.
Perhaps I may give two brief examples, for the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and for the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, of where we need a "lawful authority" exemption. First, it could be argued by some, and would be argued by many, that imprisonment causes mental suffering. Undoubtedly it does cause mental suffering, but that would not mean torture in the sense intended by the convention. As a second example, a police officer might cause pain in


effecting the arrest of a dangerous or violent criminal, but that policeman or policewoman would be acting lawfully and would not be exposed to the accusation of torture. It is because we are to deal with every possibility that we have used those words to bring into effect the convention.
Two important points were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). He was rightly concerned about extradition law and new clause 74. The countries which I might refer to in shorthand as villains, to which we would not particularly wish to return our nationals, would often be countries with which we do not have treaties. I can reassure my hon. Friend that all the protections under part I, which we debated in Committee, will be available to a fugitive. After all those protections, there is always the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to return a fugitive.
My hon. Friend also asked why we needed this whole apparatus. He wanted to know why we had to change the law. It is certainly true, as my hon. Friend said, that physical pain or suffering is generally covered by offences of assault in the English and Welsh law and also in the Scottish law. One reason why we need the legislation is the introduction of mental suffering. We also needed to have extraterritorial jurisdiction, which is not available for most offences. I remember well the remarks of my hon. Friend in Committee. He does not care much for the concept, but I can reassure him, if it is reassurance, that it is at least precedented in previous Acts, such as the Nuclear Materials (Offences) Act 1983.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) raised important points about education and information. I agree that these are matters of first importance should the Bill pass into law. There is no need for any further legislation on the issue. There is sufficient provision—for example, in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, in the codes of practice following that Act and in the prison rules—to deal with those issues. There is also the excellent training that is given to police officers and to prison staff.
I welcome the debate that we have had. Most of all, I welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West guided us in this direction in the first instance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 73

REQUIREMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CONSENT FOR PROSECUTIONS

`Proceedings for an offence under section [Torture] above shall not be begun—

(a) in England and Wales, except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney General; or
(b) in Northern Ireland, except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.'.&amp;[Mr. John Patten.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 74

EXTRADITION UNDER I870 ACT

'(1) Torture shall be deemed to be included in the list of extradition crimes contained in Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1870.

(2) For the purposes of the Extradition Act 1870 any act or omission, wherever committed, which constitutes torture and a corresponding offence against the law of any State in the case of which the Extradition Act 1870 has been applied by an Order in Council under section 2 of that Act shall be deemed to be an offence committed within the jurisdiction of that State.'.[Mr. John Patten.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to
the Bill.

New Clause 75

EXTRADITION UNDER PART I

`(1) Where—

(a) no such arrangement as is mentioned in section 2 of the Extradition Act 1870 has been made with a State which is a party to the Torture Convention; and
(b) general extradition arrangements have not been made with that State under Part I of this Act,

Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the provisions of this Act specified in subsection (2) below shall apply as between the United Kingdom and that State, subject to the limitations, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the Order, as if the Torture Convention constituted general extradition arrangements made with that State under Part I of this Act, but only in respect of the following offences—

(i) torture;
(ii) attempted torture;
(iii) counselling, procuring, commanding, abiding or abetting torture;
and
(iv) being accessory before or after the fact to torture.

(2) The provisions of this Act mentioned in subsection (1) above are—

(a) section 1(1) to (8);
(b) sections 3 to 10 and
(c) sections 12 to 18.

(3) An Order in Council under this section may not provide that a court dealing with a person arrested for an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above shall not be under a duty to determine whether the evidence would be sufficient to warrant his trial if the offence had taken place within the jurisdiction of the court.

(4) For the purposes of the provisions of this Act specified in subsection (2) above, in their application by virtue of an Order in Council under the section as between the United Kingdom and any other State any act or omission, wherever it takes place, which constitutes—

(a) an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above; and
(b) an offence against the law of that State,
shall be deemed to be an offence committed within the territory of that State.

(5) In this section "the Torture Convention" means the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December 1984.'. —[Mr. John Patten.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 76

APPLICATION TO CHANNEL ISLANDS, ISLE OF MAN AND COLONIES

`(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for extending sections [Torture] and Requirement of Attorney General's consent for prosecution above, with such modifications and exceptions as may be specified in the Order, to any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any colony.

(2) Sections 17 and 22 of the Extradition Act 1870 shall extend to section [Extradition under 1870 Act] above.

(3) Sections 19 and [Application of general extradition arrangements to Colonies] above shall extend to section [Extradition under Part 1] above.'.[Mr. John Patten.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 77

APPLICATION OF GENERAL EXTRADITION

ARRANGEMENTS TO COLONIES

`(1) Upon the making of an Order in Council under section 2 above, the provisions of this Act specified in subsection (2) below shall, unless the Order otherwise provides, extend to every colony, as regards the extradition arrangements to which the Order refers, but subject—

(a) to the modifications set out in subsections (3) to (6) below;
(b) to any further modifications as to procedure prescribed by the law of the colony; and
(c) to the limitations, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the Order.

(2) the provisions of this Act mentioned in subsection (1) above are—

(a) section 1(1) to (8);
(b) sections 3 to 10;
(c) sections 12 to 18; and
(d) this section.

(3) A reference to the colony shall be substituted for any reference to the United Kingdom or Great Britain.

(4) An extradition request may be made to the governor and the governor may exercise the powers of the Secretary of State.

(5) A reference to a consular representative recognised by the governor shall be substituted for the reference in section 4(1) above to a diplomatic representative recognised by the Secretary of State.

(6) Any reference to a magistrate, judge or court shall be construed as a reference to such judicial authority as the law of the colony may provide.

(7) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that in any colony specified in the Order—

(a) the Extradition Act 1870 shall have effect with the amendments made by this Act; and 
(b) the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 shall have effect with the amendments and repeals so made.'. —[Mr. John Patten.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government new clause 78 and Government amendments Nos. 40 and 41.

Mr. Patten: New clause 77 ensures that the substantive law contained in the Bill can have effect with appropriate modifications in a dependent territory or dependent territories generally. It thereby ensures that new extradition arrangements made by the United Kingdom can apply to a dependent territory or dependent territories. The new clause has been introduced at this stage because, after consideration, it was thought that the earlier version, clause 20, could be improved and made clearer. A number of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington caused us to check carefully that we had got the drafting exactly right.
New clause 78 allows the ad hoc extradition procedures which are being introduced into United Kingdom law by clause 11 to be made available in the colonies by Order in Council. Its terms follow exactly the provisions of clause 11 but with some modifications so that the wording is

appropriate for the colonies. The modifications reflect those already made in new clause 77 in respect of the application of general extradition arrangements to the colonies. For example, references to the United Kingdom or Great Britain will become references to the colony or colonies, and so on.
The two related amendments are entirely consequential on the new clauses.

Mr. Worthington: It seems strange that at this late stage in this elderly Bill we should still be having these changes. We wonder what pressure has come from the colonies It would be useful if the Minister could remind us what the colonies are. I hope that this will be dealt with because during the hours that I have sat on this Bench I have found it extremely difficult to remember where the colonies are and to which territories the new clause may apply.
Colonies have two characteristics. They are underdeveloped in one or more respects, which includes a deficient legal system. Frequently, colonies are disputed territories, with other states laying claim to them. I am making a probing point to find out how the Minister's new proposals will operate. Two areas which might count as colonies or dependent territories are the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. They are not seen as having full independent status. What would be the arrangements—the Minister gave cursory attention to this point—if states laying claim to those territories requested the return of their nationals? I am sure that the Minister has the answer to hand.
In Committee, the Minister referred to the wisdom that he had received from the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and said that note had been taken of it. I remember the hon. Member for Orpington having a profound objection to the word "colony", yet it is enshrined in the Bill.

Mr. Stanbrook: indicated dissent.

Mr. Worthington: The hon. Gentleman reveals that he does not have an objection to the word "colony". In Committee, the hon. Gentleman said—I realise that I must paraphrase and not quote directly—that the word "colony" was unfashionable and that people living in one did not like to be described as living in a colony. He said that they did not mind the description "British dependent territories" or "dependent territories". After receiving the hon. Gentleman's wisdom., the Minister undertook to ascertain whether there could be unification of the terms used in the Bill and, in particular, whether it was possible to get rid of the term "colony", if that were acceptable under the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967.

Mr. John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the inhabitants of those few remaining possessions might object to the use of "colony" —or "Crown colony", to give the correct description. Surely that does not apply in the Crown colony of Gibraltar, where the people demand the right to remain a Crown colony. The Crown colony of Montserrat will not take independence, although it has been offered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because it prefers to be a Crown colony. The Falkland Islands issue is well understood.

Mr. Worthington: I am grateful for that intervention because it enables me to make it clear that I did not object to the term "colony" but that the hon. Member for


Orpington thought the word should be stamped out. I accept the advice of the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) about the feelings of the citizenry of Gibraltar.
I should like the Minister to explain what are the colonies and what pressure has come from them to extend the legislation, especially with regard to those areas of the globe that are disputed territories, where there may be hostility between a colony and its neighbouring states. What is the implication of a request from a neighbouring state for extradition?
That leads me to the other imperfections in the Bill. The Opposition agree that the major imperfection is the abandonment of the prima facie rule. A fundamental principle of our system of justice—whether the English and Welsh or the Scottish system—is that a formal case should be made which is seen to have some substance, and that it should be brought before a court and deliberated upon in a judicial rather than political way before a decision is taken to extradite.
7.45 pm
If the Bill is passed, it is necessary only that a technically correct submission be put before the appropriate authorities. A case does not have to be made that a substantial act of illegality was committed so as to justify extradition. The Opposition are still uneasy about the prima facie rule being dropped, especially for colonies. I remain to be convinced by the Minister, but it is likely that the system of justice in a colony may not be as advanced as in this country. Our views are shared by eminent bodies such as the National Council for Civil Liberties, Justice and the Criminal Bar Association. In Committee, we frequently asked the Minister to give a much more substantial illustration of the extent to which Britain was a "problem" in sometimes being regarded as a haven for criminals. The Government have failed to do that, so we must take the opportunity presented by the new clause to ask for elaboration.
We are profoundly uneasy, especially after the vote a few weeks ago, about the idea that it is possible for an individual to be extradited to a country that still practises capital punishment. That issue has not been put right in the new clause. I should like to register our unease about extradition from this country and from the colonies to countries that still practise capital punishment.

Mr. Stanbrook: The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has confused me somewhat, and I do not know whether he has confused my hon. Friends. May we have from my hon. Friend the Minister confirmation that the Government have made up their mind about dependent territories and that there is to be standardisation of terminology, in that all dependent territories are now colonies, and that that applies to the wording of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 as well as to the revised arrangements for the amended Extradition Act 1870?
I apologise for being somewhat mischievous in this debate and in Standing Committee in referring to other species of dependent territories which might include protectorates and condominiums, which we do not have but could acquire. I am sure that it would be helpful to the state and to me if my hon. Friend were to tell us that all

the territories coming under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom are to be known henceforth as colonies, whether self-governing or not, and that the term "dependent territory" will not be used.

Mr. Bermingham: I understand that in due course the Minister will give us a list of the colonies dealt with in new clauses 77 and 78. I shall wait with fascination to hear what, if anything, we have left. I see that the civil servants are all writing away. The Minister has his classroom pals at work. Be that as it may, new clauses 77 and 78 extend the mischief that clause 8 and others seek to achieve.
There was considerable debate in Committee about the manner of extradition and the abandonment by the United Kingdom of the tried and tested formula of a prima facie case. In the old days, one had to produce a prima facie case to an English court before someone could be extradited. That caused a little embarrassment to Spain and other countries that could never meet our tests. The test is very simple: there is a case to answer.
In the new European love affair that we have had over the past few years, the Government have obviously listened to new members of the Community as well as to existing members. They have obviously decided that the time has come to make it easier for countries that have a different system of jurisdiction to secure the extradition of people from the United Kingdom. Even if one uses the other system, which is inquisitorial rather than adversarial, it is still quite simple to build up and maintain a prima facie case that will secure extradition. We do not need to change the rules.
As if that were not bad enough, new clause 78 extends what I consider to be one of the most dangerous parts of the Bill—the simplified procedure in clause 10 of the Bill as originally drafted. Clause 11 provides for special extradition arrangements. Clause 11 says:
Where special extradition arrangements have been made in respect of a person, extradition procedures shall be available in the case of that person, as between the United Kingdom and the foreign state with whom the arrangements have been made, subject to the limitations, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the arrangements.
Effectively, that means that special arrangements can apply in respect of John Smith or John Doe or some other politician whom a country does not like. The country might rather like him back. He may have been naughty. He may have been in opposition, for example. A private little arrangement can be entered into with that country in respect of that one person. That stinks.
The fact that in the Bill we are putting our names to such behaviour makes me want to ask some fundamental questions about what the Minister has been doing for the long months since we began considering the Bill. The Minister has taken on board some of the points made in Committee both by Conservative Members and by the Opposition. I do not mean to be unkind: to be fair, when he thinks about a point he sometimes sees that there is worth and merit in it, and many of the proposals made in Committee have gone into the Bill.
It was different when it came to extradition. The Government have a theory—and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) lives by the theory—that extradition law needs to be changed because it is out of date. To be fair to the hon. Member for Orpington, he was saying that long before the Bill ever reached the House. Although, as he knows, I fundamentally disagree with


him, at one stage even I was convinced that the prime facie rule must go. In Committee I confessed the error of my ways. Between March 1987, when we first discussed the matter in Committee, and February 1988, when we discussed it again, I took time to think the matter through. My open admission that I had got it wrong is there in Hansard.
The test is simple. If somebody comes for trial in this country, the Crown must show a case before the defence is called upon to answer. In the vast number of cases it is not very hard to meet that test. What is the difference between a foreign national in this country and an ordinary citizen of this country appearing before a British court? The same test ought to apply. That is the fundamental argument.
I had hoped that, like me, the Minister would have thought again and perhaps had the courage, like me, to realise that he was wrong and that the Criminal Bar Association and the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate, who has considerable experience in these matters, and many other eminent bodies, are right in saying that the test in any English court must be the same. The Bill and the new clauses, which extend its provisions to the long-forgotten colonies, wherever they may be, change the ground rules.
Let us consider the simple example of two successive cases before an English court. The first is an application for extradition to Spain, whether by special procedure or ordinary method, to be heard at 10·30 am before the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate in London. Let us suppose that that case finishes at 12 midday. The case to be heard in the afternoon is a section 6(1) committal for trial at the same court. In those two cases the tests of the standard of proof required on the part of the prosecution will be different. For the first time in this country we shall be applying different fundamental tests in the same court and perhaps even on the same day. That is bad for British justice. It is an appalling precedent and I hope that the House will reject the new clauses.

Mr. Lawrence: As a proud member of the executive of the British branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—at any rate until next Wednesday—I must protest most strongly at the implication by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) that we forget our colonies, our dependencies, or any part of the Commonwealth. We do no such thing in the House. There is very strong competition to join the executive of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which proves that we do not forget our colonies, our dependencies or the Commonwealth.

Mr. Worthington: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman name the colonies?

Mr. Lawrence: I shall leave that to my hon. Friend the Minister, who is about to reply.
Will my hon. Friend tell this simple soul what we are changing in the law by the new clauses? I was under the impression that section 14(1)(b) of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967, applied the criminal offences jurisdiction to our dependencies. If I heard him correctly, my hon. Friend said that that was the purpose of the new clauses. I should be most grateful if he would set me right.

Mr. John Patten: The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) ought to be ashamed of himself for not being able to tell the House what colonies

we have. It is a monstrous admission, and I shall now put him right: Anguilla, Bahamas, Bermuda, the British Antarctic Territory, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St. Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Virgin Islands. For the sake of completion I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that technically the South Sandwich Islands and South Georgia are now separate from the Falkland Islands. They used to be the Falkland Islands and dependencies.
8 pm
The Opposition Front Bench asked why it was necessary at this stage to introduce the new clause and these amendments. It is my fault. The main difficulty with clause 20, which I spotted only recently, is that the effect of section 17 of the Extradition Act 1870 was that an Order in Council under section 2 of that Act, unless it provided otherwise, applied automatically to every British possession—that is the substantive provisions of the 1870 Act with modifications and the terms of the relevant treaty as incorporated in the Order in Council. Clause 20 would enable us to extend the substantive provisions of the Bill to a colony, but it makes no corresponding provision for the incorporation of the relevant treaty into the law of the colony. Therefore, the new clause is necessary.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) rightly asked about the use of the word "colony". The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) related his remarks to colonies, and I can tell him that the unfortunate person whom he saw in Bow street at 10·30 am is protected by the full rigour of all the protections built into clause 75, and ultimately by the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that if, ultimately, it all boils down to ministerial discretion, this becomes a lottery because it depends in many ways on how much pressure is brought to bear on whether that person is or is not a political refugee? Surely there should be certainty, rather than uncertainty, in the law.

Mr. Patten: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has fully forgotten all the other provisions introduced into the Bill by clause 75. I am sure the House will want to know that "colony" is used rather than "dependent territory" because it is defined in the Interpretation Act 1978 as:
Any part of Her Majesty's dominions outside the British Islands except—

(a) countries having fully responsible status within the Commonwealth;
(b) territories for whose external relations a country other than the United Kingdom is responsible;
(c) associated states",
and there are no more associated states. All that will be beautifully crystal clear to the House when the second edition of that important and valuable volume "Stanbrook on Extradition" is published, and we are looking forward to it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 70.

Division No. 361]
[8.03 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Janman, Tim


Allason, Rupert
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Amess, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Amos, Alan
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Arbuthnot, James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Ashby, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Atkinson, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Batiste, Spencer
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Beggs, Roy
Lightbown, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Lilley, Peter


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Boswell, Tim
Lord, Michael


Bowis, John
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
McCrindle, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Brazier, Julian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Bright, Graham
Mans, Keith


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Maples, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Buck, Sir Antony
Maude, Hon Francis


Butterfill, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Miller, Sir Hal


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Mills, lain


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Carrington, Matthew
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Cash, William
Moate, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Monro, Sir Hector


Chope, Christopher
Morrison, Sir Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Moss, Malcolm


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Neubert, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Couchman, James
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Cran, James
Oppenheim, Phillip


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Paice, James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Devlin, Tim
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Porter, David (Waveney)


Dorrell, Stephen
Portillo, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Powell, William (Corby)


Durant, Tony
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Evennett, David
Redwood, John


Farr, Sir John
Rhodes James, Robert


Favell, Tony
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Forman, Nigel
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Shersby, Michael


Forth, Eric
Sims, Roger


Fox, Sir Marcus
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Freeman, Roger
Speller, Tony


Gale, Roger
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Gill, Christopher
Squire, Robin


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stanbrook, Ivor


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Stern, Michael


Grylls, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Hampson, Dr Keith
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hanley, Jeremy
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Harris, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hind, Kenneth
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Thornton, Malcolm


Howard, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Tracey, Richard


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Howells, Geraint
Walden, George


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Warren, Kenneth


Hunter, Andrew
Watts, John


Irvine, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Jack, Michael
Wheeler, John


Jackson, Robert
Whitney, Ray





Widdecombe, Ann



Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Richard Ryder and Mr. David Maclean.


Woodcock, Mike



Yeo, Tim





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
McCartney, Ian


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Barron, Kevin
McNamara, Kevin


Battle, John
McWilliam, John


Beckett, Margaret
Madden, Max


Bermingham, Gerald
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Marek, Dr John


Buchan, Norman
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Buckley, George J.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Mullin, Chris


Cousins, Jim
Nellist, Dave


Dewar, Donald
Pendry, Tom


Dixon, Don
Pike, Peter L.


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Prescott, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fisher, Mark
Randall, Stuart


Flynn, Paul
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Foster, Derek
Reid, Dr John


Fraser, John
Short, Clare


Fyfe, Maria
Skinner, Dennis


Galloway, George
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Soley, Clive


Golding, Mrs Llin
Spearing, Nigel


Gordon, Mildred
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wall, Pat


Hardy, Peter
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Henderson, Doug
Worthington, Tony


Hinchliffe, David



Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Tellers for the Noes:


Janner, Greville
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Frank Cook.


Leighton, Ron

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 78

SPECIAL EXTRADITION ARRANGEMENTS—COLONIES

`(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that this section shall extend to any colony specified in the Order in the case of foreign states with whom there are no general extradition arrangements, subject to the limitations, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the Order.

(2) Where arrangements have been made in respect of a person under which extradition procedures under this Part of this Act will be available as between a colony to which this section applies and a foreign state, such extraction procedures shall be available in the case of that person. as between the colony and the state with whom the arrangements have been made, subject—

(a) to the modifications of the provisions of this Act specified in subsection (2) of section (Application of general extradition arrangements to colonies) above set out in subsections (3) to (6) of that section;
(b) to any further modifications as to procedure prescribed by the law of the colony; and
(c) to the limitationss, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the arrangements.

3) The provisions of this Act mentioned in section (Application of general extradition arrangements to colonies) (2)(a) to (c) above shall extend to the colony so far as is necessary for the purposes of the arrangements.

4) If the governor or the Secretary of State issues a certificate —


(a) that such arrangements have been made; and
(b) that extradition procedures are available in the case of the person named in the certificate as between the colony and the foreign state to the extent specified in the certificate,
it shall be conclusive evidence of all matters stated in it.'. — [Mr. John Patten.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 79

ENFORCEMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND ORDER IN SCOTLAND

'(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide that for the purposes of any part of the law of Northern Ireland which appears to Her Majesty to correspond to this Part of this Act sections 89 to 92 above shall have effect as they have effect for the purposes of this Part subject to such modifications as may be specified in the Order.

(2) An Order in Council under this section may contain such incidental, consequential and transitional provisions as Her Majesty considers expedient.

(3) An Order in Council under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'—[Mr. John Patten.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Patten: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 54 and 55.

Mr. Patten: Hon. Members, particularly those who served on the Committee, will be aware of the provisions in part VI of the Bill which enable courts to confiscate the proceeds of crime and which have been widely welcomed. We want to ensure that confiscation orders are enforceable throughout the United Kingdom, regardless of the jurisdiction in which they were made. We propose to bring forward legislation in due course to enable confiscation orders to be made and to be enforced in Northern Ireland. Clause 93 already contains a power to enable Northern Ireland orders to be enforceable in England and Wales, but we shall need an equivalent power to enable them to be enforced in Scotland, too.
That is the simple purpose of new clause 79 and of Government amendments Nos. 54 and 55, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I thank the Minister for his helpful introduction which has answered one or two of the questions that I might otherwise have asked. However, I intervene briefly, in a fairly tentative spirit and with a touch of embarrassment because, as the Minister will recognise, I have not been involved, in even the most peripheral way, with this Bill. I regret that in a sense, because, as the House knows, we in Scotland are a little sensitive about our tangential appearances in Bills that are largely the concern of Ministries whose writ does not run north of the border. The Bill contains matters of real substance and importance which are difficult to scrutinise and do not come up in this new clause and will therefore have to remain unscrutinised.
For example, I wish to refer—I shall do so only in passing so as not to strain your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker— to clause 122 which deals with the detention of

young offenders in Scotland and is a major and important reform. The Minister may not be aware of the background to that, but it is a case of Ministers eating humble pie because the first Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced in 1978, but failed at the general election, contained some Labour amendments very much along the lines of this clause. They were derided at the time and, when the Tories came in, they went for a different system in the Criminal Justice Bill which then reached the statute book.
If I could, I should like to spend some time speaking about such matters, but that pleasure is denied to me and the Minister on this occasion. I cannot vouch personally for the Minister's reputation, as I have never had to deal with him in an official capacity, but his reputation suggests that there might be a wide measure of agreement and that the tone might be constructive. I hope that it does not depress him to hear that I have heard good things said about him. I am not smearing him; I am simply welcoming him to the human race so far as penal matters are concerned, and I am delighted to do so.
New clause 79 is a rather odd clause in the sense that it refers to Northern Ireland and to the enforcement of a Northern Ireland order in Scotland. The provision applies to Scotland, but is introduced by the Home Secretary who has responsibility only for what happens in England and Wales. A little while ago I took the precaution of phoning the Scottish Office to ask for an explanation of the new clause. My call created a little confusion, although the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is noted for his courtesy, came across personally with a note for me which set out in skeleton fashion the Scottish Office's understanding of the significance of the new clause. The Scottish Office is relying on the simplistic explanation that the new clause is necessary and includes enforcement provisions. The explanation does not go very much beyond that.
We are dealing with a matter with which I am totally unfamiliar. As I understand the Minister, we are considering a possible future order which may be laid extending to Northern Ireland similar powers to the provisions in the Bill for England and Wales. It is important to stress that we are talking about the enforcement of English orders. As the Minister will know from his general background and no doubt wide-ranging interest in the subject, we do not have similar orders in Scotland.
The history of this matter is interesting. The Scots looked long and hard at confiscation powers and decided that they did not want to go down that road, at least in the immediate future. We had a very odd piece of legislation which introduced heavy and punitive fines for drug trafficking in Scotland. I remember spending many happy hours in Committee trying to persuade Scottish Office Ministers to explain the criteria that the courts would apply when deciding what was appropriate in quantifying the fines.
Those measures were introduced a few years ago in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 on the basis that we did not want confiscation orders in Scotland. However, fashion and populism are powerful drugs. That is an unfortunate simile when we are talking about drug trafficking. Shortly after the introduction of that Act, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 was passed which departed from fines for drug trafficking which were meant to cream off illegal profits. It introduced


straight confiscation. Again, that was specifically limited to drug trafficking. The Scottish Office was careful to say that it did not, at least at that stage, intend to follow its English counterpart by introducing confiscation with regard to serious crime generally which has happened for England and Wales in this Bill. That does not apply in Scotland.
If the Minister is going to introduce a Northern Ireland order which the new clause will allow to be enforced in Scotland, there will be broader powers for confiscating the profits from serious crime in England and Wales. The same provision will apply in Northern Ireland, but those powers will not apply in Scotland, although there will be a specific exception for those who profit from the abhorrent trade of drug trafficking. That is a rather strange patchwork.
I assume that the order for Northern Ireland is imminent, although it may be naive of me to say that. I suppose that the fact that this proposal has not been included in the Bill at this late stage is a fail-safe device in case it is thought appropriate in future. I presume that the order is more than a gleam in the Minister's eye. I presume that there is at least a draft on his desk and that it will be produced in the not too distant future. No doubt the Minister will be able to say a word or two about its timing and framework.
This is apparently a single order and not a clutch of orders. My experience in Scotland is that orders come in clutches, droves and plagues under this Government. It is quite encouraging that there is only one order on this occasion.
No doubt this may be a reflection of my naivety—perhaps that is being a little unfair on myself, rather a reflection on my inexperience of Northern Ireland affairs—but, as a refugee from the legal profession, may I say that there appears to be a rather odd exhibit here. We are told that Her Majesty—I believe that that is something of a constitutional convention—must judge what appears to correspond to this part of the Act with regard to the English confiscation powers. Presumably that will apply in terms of the aim of any Northern Ireland order.
We are talking about an order that we have not seen which effectively allows the Executive to decide what corresponds in different provisions. I am not very clear about how loosely we are introducing this matter into Scottish law. I am not very clear about Orders in Council, but I will not ask the Minister to go into that. I am used to statutory instruments, regulations and variants of that kind. I understand that there are special considerations in Northern Ireland, and I accept that that must be so, given the present difficult circumstances.
I took the trouble to look out the most obvious and recent parallel to this provision. It is to be found in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 which applies English orders for drug trafficking in Scotland and allows them to be enforced in Scotland. The Minister will remember that the pertinent section of that Act is section 20. I presume that the general provisions in sections 20 to 23 are very similar to the provision in new clause 79 in terms of the Northern Ireland provision. I presume that new clause 79 is an exact parallel and the powers are the same.
I raised that point out of curiosity. I notice that section 20(4) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 deals with the enforcement of English orders in Scotland and states:
Nothing in this section enables any provision of an order which empowers a receiver to do anything in Scotland under section 11(3)(a) of this Act to have effect in the law of Scotland.
It took me a minute or two to understand that. I went back to section 1l(3)(a), as anyone would in the circumstances. That dealt with the realisation of property and it referred me to section 9 in the Act. As so often happens, it became something of a paper chase. Section 9 deals with the
Charging orders in respect of land, securities etc.
I do not expect the Minister to say anything about the "etc." However, as he seemed to assent to my proposition that the machinery for enforcement in section 20 of the 1986 Act is an exact parallel to the enforcement provisions for Scotland of English confiscation orders in this Bill, and as we are making similar arrangements for Northern Ireland in this new clause, if we have a Northern Ireland order in future, I wonder whether the Minister will say a word or two about the powers in section 11(3)(a). I should have thought that those powers would be available to the receiver under this Bill in the English provisions, but they were excluded in the 1986 Act. I hope he will tell us whether there are similar provisions in the clutch of clauses that we are considering at the moment.
We could spend some time on this matter if we were in Committee. I recognise that we are not in Committee and it would probably be wrong to detain the House for too long on these matters. However, we need some general assurances about the likely fate of the order. We need to know when it will appear, whether it will be exact in point or whether we will stretch the matter of correspondence. We need to know more about its similarity and comparability with existing provisions in the Bill for England. We also need to know to what extent this will be a standard provision.
8.30 pm
I am genuinely sorry that we have not been given an opportunity to examine the merits of those provisions, because I sometimes find to my chagrin that what happens in the Home Office foreshadows what happens in Scotland. Funnily enough, we are sensitive about being used as guinea pigs in respect of such matters as the poll tax, although I certainly cannot go into that.
Very often the opposite applies. We went for confiscation in drug trafficking largely on the ground that cross-border harmony is important, at the time when the Scottish Office specifically indicated that it would not be going down that road. At present, the Scottish Office is again stoutly maintaining that it has no immediate plans to introduce confiscation orders in the wider range of serious crime. However, the Scottish Law Commission is examining that matter and we await a report of its investigations.
I suspect that, whatever it may come up with, we are probably committed to going down that road simply because the Minister and his colleagues in the Home Office have already decided to do so. The Minister will recognise that we have more than a passing interest in the way in which this aspect is handled and its operation. We shall certainly watch for early signs of activity in the courts. I may be over-cynical, but some of the machinery appears complicated and clumsy, as are some of the concepts relating to confiscation. Also, some of the morality


involved in terms of third parties raises some difficult issues, which we have debated in another context and will continue to discuss at greater length on a future occasion. Perhaps the Minister owes the House a few more words about this minor but interesting new clause which he has produced for our inspection.

Mr. John Patten: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) need not fear that some of the issues that he raised were not closely examined in the Standing Committee, because we had the benefit of his hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who lucidly pressed home many of them. I can flatter the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, because he is not in the Chamber, but I hope that it will not do him any damage with his general management committee. He was consistently impressive in probing the Government in Committee, and I hope that he will soon be on the Labour Front Bench. I understand that it is rather the thing now to have hon. Members from Scotland on the Labour Front Bench, and I am sure that it will not be long before the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie is there. For example, the point made by the hon. Member for Garscaden about young offenders was typical of those impressively made by his hon. Friend in Committee.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked many pertinent questions. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 contains powers of confiscation corresponding to those enacted for England and Wales in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has asked the Scottish Law Commission to consider what powers of confiscation should be available to Scottish Courts for offences other than drug trafficking, and the commission is currently considering that matter.
The Northern Ireland order—if and when it passes through the House—will allow court orders to be made. We hope to lay that order before the House in the next Session. I hope that the hon. Member for Garscadden will be pleased to hear that an Order in Council made under new clause 79 will be subject to affirmative resolution. That assurance will provide the hon. Gentleman with an opportunity to make his further comments. Without that provision there would be a real risk—which the hon. Gentleman, as a Scotsman, would not welcome—that the proceeds of crimes committed in Northern Ireland could cross what is, after all, a narrow strip of water in some places and find a haven in Scotland. That is not a situation that we could countenance with anything like equanimity.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 80

BODY SAMPLES—NORTHERN IRELAND

'Schedule [Body Samples—Northern Ireland] shall have effect with respect to the taking of samples from persons in Northern Ireland in connection with the investigation of offences to which it applies.'—[Mr. Stanley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider the following: New clause 82 —Non-intimate samples (Great Britain)—
'The same powers shall be available to police forces in England and Wales with regard to the taking of non-intimate samples as are given to the police in Northern Ireland in section (Body Samples—Northern Ireland).'. 
Government amendments Nos. 68, 69, 196 and 70.

Mr. Stanley: The effect of the new clause and the related schedule and amendments will be to bring on to the statute book essentially the same provisions on the taking of body samples from those suspected of serious offences as have already been passed into law in England and Wales under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—the so-called PACE.
I start by anticipating two questions which right hon. and hon. Members will wish to raise. The first is why it is necessary to introduce these provisions through the Criminal Justice Bill rather than through the normal Northern Ireland order-making procedure; the second is why, given that we have decided to use the Criminal Justice Bill, the amendments could not have been introduced at an earlier stage in the Bill's proceedings.
It was originally our intention to introduce the PACE provisions on body samples in the Northern Ireland draft order, in which we shall be replicating for Northern Ireland most of the PACE provisions. However, given the extensive scope and complexity of this draft order, which we shall be publishing for consultation later this year, it will not come into effect, subject to parliamentary approval, until 1989. The Criminal Justice Bill provides the possibility of bringing the statute law on the taking of body samples in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales significantly earlier than would otherwise be the case. I hope the House will agree that there should be no avoidable delays in assisting the RUC to deal with serious and violent crime.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am glad that my right hon. Friend wants no avoidable delay in assisting the RUC. However, I and others suggested several years ago during the Committee stage of what is now the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, that such powers should be given to the RUC. Does my hon. Friend not think that there has been a good deal of avoidable delay between then and now?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend knows that the relevant overall legislation covered by the PACE provisions in Northern Ireland is somewhat different from that in England. We have seen the considerable process of examining the applicability of that situation in the Northern Ireland context. We shall shortly be presenting a substantial and complex order. I am not familiar with the detailed gestation over the period since the PACE legislation was passed, but I feel sure that my Department has done its utmost to press forward as quickly as possible. However, I am certain that we have this opportunity to give the RUC statutory powers that are extremely important and germane to their law enforcement responsibilities.
The present lack of statutory provisions for the taking of body samples is proving a material handicap in the circumstances of Northern Ireland. At present the RUC can act only under the common law, and this uncertainty has tended to handicap the police in the conduct of their investigations, as well as leaving suspects uncertain as to


their rights. Furthermore, major advances in DNA profiling have become available to forensic scientists in recent years, making the ability to take body samples of even greater forensic value to the police than hitherto when dealing with violent crime, both terrorist and non-terrorist. For those reasons we have decided to take the opportunity presented by the Criminal Justice Bill to give the RUC the PACE powers to take samples and clarify the rights of those affected.
The reason why the amendments were not introduced earlier in the proceedings on the Bill is that our PACE order has been taking longer to finalise than was expected and it is only relatively recently that it has become apparent that there is likely to be a material time advantage in bringing the body sample provisions onto the statute book through the Criminal Justice Bill rather than through our PACE order. In addition, because of the consideration that we have been giving to the boundary between intimate and non-intimate body samples, to which I shall return, it was not possible, I am afraid, to introduce these amendments until the commencement of the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill.
Let me deal now with the detailed provisions of the amendments, the substantive element of which is essentially set out in the new schedule. With one modification, to which I shall come, the new schedule essentially reproduces for Northern Ireland the equivalent provisions on the taking of body samples in England and Wales as are found in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
The powers to take body samples relate only to those who are suspected of being involved in serious offences. The serious offences listed in the new schedule are the same as those in the PACE Act and include murder, rape, kidnapping, sexual offences against children and various firearms and explosive offences. In addition, the powers to take body samples under this schedule will also apply to a person arrested under section 12(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984, which allows the police to arrest a person who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
The new schedule makes the same distinction as in the England and Wales legislation between intimate and non-intimate samples. Again, as in England and Wales, it provides that a non-intimate sample may be taken without the suspect's consent, but that an intimate sample may be taken only with the suspect's consent. With one difference, the definition of what constitutes intimate samples on the one hand, and non-intimate samples on the other, exactly follows the England and Wales legislation. The one difference is that we have included in the definition of non-intimate samples a swab taken from the suspect's mouth. A sample of saliva has also been added, because the taking of a mouth sample unavoidably results in the taking of saliva, for which a statutory basis needs, of course, to be provided.
We are making that one difference for DNA profiling reasons. As the House knows, DNA profiling has made great strides in recent years and this progress seems certain to continue. DNA profiling is already proving of increasing forensic value to the police in providing the possibility of enabling those suspected of violent crime to be positively identified by the matching of the suspect's

DNA profile with the profile of DNA material found on the victim's body or clothes or at the scene of the crime. DNA profiling, it should be stressed, is proving of value in eliminating suspects as well as in confirming a suspect's involvement.
The reason why a mouth swab is being added to the list of non-intimate samples in the new schedule is this. Under the England and Wales legislation, the samples that can be guaranteed to provide sufficient DNA material for profiling purposes, blood in particular, are classified as intimate, and can therefore be taken only with the suspect's consent. In England and Wales, we understand that that consent is normally forthcoming; hence the fact that this change is being made in relation to Northern Ireland only. However, in Northern Ireland, both among terrorist organisations, and increasingly among other serious non-terrorist criminals, there is an altogether more determined and more systematic attempt to conceal and to destroy material that may be of forensic value to the police.
Relatively recently, as research on DNA profiling has progressed, it has been discovered that a mouth swab, which can be taken by rubbing the area between the lip and the gum, and without any need for the mouth, other than the lips, to be opened, will usually provide a reliable means of obtaining sufficient DNA material for profiling purposes without a need for contact with a part of the body that would generally be considered to be intimate.
8.45 pm
Last year in Northern Ireland 100 people were murdered and nearly 200 were made the victims of the barbaric practice of punishment shootings, with victims being shot through knees, ankles and elbows. We also had our share of other violent crimes such as rape and other forms of violence against the person. In the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, highlighted once again by the horrific murder of six soldiers yesterday, it seems to us to be entirely reasonable and necessary, in the interests of protecting the law-abiding public, to give the police powers to take a mouth swab, if necessary, without the suspect's consent.
We shall at the same time be ensuring through the new schedule that the statutory rights of individuals from whom samples are requested are clarified, and I should like to spell these out.
First, no sample can be taken—intimate or non-intimate—except with the authorisation of an RUC officer of the rank of superintendent or above.
Secondly, that authorisation can be given only if the superintendent has reasonable grounds, first for suspecting the involvement of the suspect in one of the serious offences listed in the schedule, and, secondly, for believing that the sample will tend to confirm or disprove the suspect's involvement. These authorisations by the superintendent will of course all be justiciable before the courts. Thirdly, as I have said, an intimate sample may be taken only with the suspect's consent, and then, other than a sample of urine, only by a registered medical practitioner. Fourthly, we shall be publishing and making available to the House that part of our code of practice under the PACE legislation which relates to the taking of body samples before the new provisions come into effect.
The specific safeguards in relation to the taking of body samples will, of course, be additional to the standard safeguards already available to all arrested persons under


the existing judges' rules. For terrorists, the safeguards include statutory rights of access to legal advice and to having a family member or friend informed of the arrest. Indeed, it is the RUC's standard practice to give terrorist suspects a written notice setting out their rights.
I hope the House will agree that it is right that the legislation in Northern Ireland on the taking of body samples should be brought into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope the House will also agree that the potential forensic importance of the very limited addition to the ability to take non-intimate samples that we are proposing for the RUC is fully justified in relation to the unique difficulties put in the way of the police in Northern Ireland in obtaining forensic evidence, and also in relation to the compelling obligation that we have to protect the public from violent criminals in what is, sadly, still much the most violent part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Just before the recess I received a letter from the Secretary of State courteously informing me of the Government's intention to table this new clause on Report, and I am grateful for that.
The purpose behind the new clause, and the schedule involved, is one with which the House will agree. I do not think that people generally will object to the changes regarding saliva and mouth swabs which have been made specifically to meet the situation in Northern Ireland. It does not strike me as an infringement of human dignity.
It is also particularly important in the campaign against men of violence, or indeed women of violence—whether or not they are involved in terrorism—that this weapon should be added to the forensic arsenal. We cannot rule out any legitimate scientific advance in our fight against serious crime. That is equally true in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. If they may help in finding men guilty of such outrages as we discussed earlier today, no one in his right mind should deny these methods to the police force.
DNA profiling, as the Minister has pointed out, is an important and significant scientific development. In many ways it can be a new defence for those caught up in circumstances in which they might be found guilty but scientific evidence can result in their acquittal. This is one of the instances in which the advance of science works equally well in dealing with the wrongly accused and the person who seeks a false alibi to escape conviction. It is therefore to be welcomed.
At the same time, I wonder to what extent the new developments in DNA profiling will make it continually necessary to seek intimate samples. I understand that nearly all DNA characteristics can be found in non-intimate samples. If so, much of what we are discussing today will, I hope, become obsolete. I also hope that it will mean more effective policing and police discovery of serious crimes. I hope that the Minister can advise the House whether he feels that DNA profiling will no longer necessitate the taking of some intimate body samples, granted that safeguards exist in the taking of such samples.
While I support the purpose and spirit of the Minister's proposals, I fear that I cannot support his method. I felt that his reasons for introducing the proposals on Report were rather thin. It is not as though this was new material; it has been on the statute book for four or five years, and we on the mainland are well acquainted with it. I

understand the pressures from the RUC and the security forces in Northern Ireland to end the doubt and to be given such powers, but that desire existed when the Bill was first introduced. This is the second occasion on which it has been before the House. The proposal could have been included in the second Bill, if not in the first.
When the old PACE order for Northern Ireland was being drafted, it must have been clear to the Minister that the RUC would want to accelerate the introduction of parts of that legislation into the arsenal of forensic weaponry. It seems that only four, five or six weeks ago the Government thought, "We are not going to be able to do this now. Let us shove it into the Report stage," but it could have been done earlier. Many of the points that I shall make later are essentially Committee points and could have been dealt with in Committee. Those interested for reasons of civil liberty or legal procedure—or perhaps with a straightforward interest in the fight against crime —could have had the opportunity to put their ideas to the Committee. As it is, we are in the position that we were in when dealing earlier this week with the Housing Bill. We are facing the same attitude from the Government, and the same material difficulties.
We are not being given proper time to go through all the small print of this important item. It is a case of take it or leave it. Either we pass the new clause as it is, or we seek to vote against it. We have no opportunity to try to amend it constructively. Normally, in a matter affecting criminal justice, there is common ground on both sides of the House. Hon. Members should have the opportunity to contribute their thinking so that Ministers, even those at the Northern Ireland Office, can have second thoughts and come back on Report. This is scarcely the way to advance understanding and discussion of such important matters.
We should not consider Northern Ireland in such a context. We return to the question: why was it necessary to introduce the proposal in this way? Again, the Minister's arguments were very thin. It is not new legislation; it has been there for a long time. We could, if necessary, have taken the new clause and amendment No. 196 out of the proposed PACE legislation and order for Northern Ireland, produced it as a separate Order in Council and sent it round to the bodies that might want to discuss it. That might not have been the best way of dealing with the matter, but it would have given interested bodies such as the Police Federation and the Bar Association an opportunity to make their observations. We could also have discussed the matter when debating the last major Bill dealing with Northern Ireland, or in the European Parliamentary Assembly in the light of United Kingdom experience.
This casual attitude contains all sorts of problems for Northern Ireland legislation and the way in which these matters are dealt with on the Floor of the House. It is not a question of take it or leave it. People mind about that way of dealing with such questions.
The former semi-detached Leader of the House—now the detached right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen)—put it eloquently when we were dealing with the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. It was the same principle with regard to Northern Ireland. New material was introduced on Report. It was important material which in that context most hon. Members would not have regarded as particularly controversial. It is important because of what we seek to achieve in the fight against the men of


violence in Northern Ireland, but again we were asked either to accept it or to reject it. That was not the right way to deal with it.
The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, speaking in the debate on the allocation of time for the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, said:
Thirdly, the Bill now contains provisions for Northern Ireland that were introduced at a late stage. I would not anticipate the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) but the House knows, from its intimate concern with Northern Ireland affairs over the years, that the idea of transforming British legislation into United Kingdom legislation by making a common provision for the Province is a matter of considerable constitutional significance, which I suspect would divide the House in several directions. I shall not dwell on that this evening, except to say that one cannot introduce legislation of this character, with its implications for precedent, on some sort of side wind introduced on Report. That is not a proper use of parliamentary procedure.
9 pm
It is a matter of considerable constitutional significance. I shall not dwell on the matter at length, but the danger is there. A precedent was being set in that Bill. Various matters relating to Northern Ireland were being introduced on a side wind on Report. That is not the proper way to deal with matters that concern and are important to the people of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North referred in that debate to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross).
Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East did not wax so eloquent as the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, who had cause to blaze a trail for us. Nevertheless, what he lacked in paragraphs he made up for by his succinct and direct remarks during the limited time that was available to him. He referred kindly to the speech of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North when he said:
We have listened to a most interesting and entertaining speech from the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He referred to the fact that the Bill was extended to Northern Ireland at the last moment, a matter which annoys Northern Ireland Members intensely. That should not become a precedent. If the Government were to pursue this course in future, time and again legislation for Northern Ireland would be introduced and we would not even know it was coming. Only a fortnight ago today, the amendment extending the Bill to Northern Ireland was tabled and it was just by chance that I happened to notice it the next morning." — [Official Report, 25 May 1988; Vol. 134, c. 392–93.]
Not all of us have the courtesy of letters from the Secretary of State informing us of changes or other proposals, but what the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North and the hon. Member for Londonderry, East seemed to fear was the creation of a precedent. That precedent seems to have been created, from the Firearms (Amendment) Bill to this Bill. We have to make sure that it goes no further. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will be able to give to Northern Ireland Members and to other hon. Members an undertaking that such a procedure will be avoided in future.
The deficiencies of this kind of procedure are shown by part of the Minister's speech. He said that when this provision is introduced the relevant part of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act regulations dealing with it will be published at the same time. If the Minister could produce the schedule for us, he could also produce the regulations

governing the code of practice. We are arguing, debating and discussing something without knowing precisely what terms, procedures and practices are to be followed by officers of the rank of superintendent and above.
We do not know what the rights of those who are challenged will be, or how those rights are to be protected. That is all in limbo. The House will have no opportunity to discuss matters that are of the utmost importance when powers such as these are given to the police. We ought to be able to discuss the manner in which the Government are seeking to proceed with these matters at the same time as we are giving powers to the Government and to the police.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's speech very closely. Would it not be passing strange if the guidance sent to the Royal Ulster Constabulary were materially to differ from that which is already available and used by the police in England and Wales? If that is the case, and if the guidance is going to be identical, as I trust it will be, what is the reason for not providing it now?

Mr. McNamara: I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting so eloquently what was going to be my next point —that the code is published in Great Britain. He made the point very well. It is a serious point which needs to be answered. We have to know if there will be any differences at all.
Having made a general point that should be made on Report, regrettably I must make what many would regard as a Committee stage point, but unfortunately this is the only stage at which we can discuss it. First, I wish to raise a question about the definition of an intimate sample. We are told that it means
a sample of blood, semen, or any other tissue fluid, urine or pubic hair, or a swab taken from any of a person's bodily orifices except his mouth".
I, and I think most hon. Members, would accept the reasons for "except his mouth."
We would like to know how far the point that I made earlier, which arose from my immediate response to what the Minister said about DNA profiling, will apply to all those samples of an intimate nature. Will we reach a point where, for purposes of identification—there are other purposes; for example, a sample of urine to test for drunken driving—it will be sufficient to have a non-intimate sample? On a more flippant note, but still a serious point, what would be the attitude of a district judge in Port Laoise to a DNA profile for identity purposes? Perhaps that is trespassing on foreign jurisdiction.
An intimate sample can be taken only by appropriate consent. That provision gives protection to a person who is accused. According to the schedule,
'appropriate consent' means—

(a) in relation to a person who has attained the age of 17 years, the consent of that person;
(b) in relation to a person who has not attained that age but has attained the age of 14 years; the consent of that person and his parent or guardian; and
(c) in relation to a person who has not attained the age of 14 years, the consent of his parent or guardian".
Under the heading, "Intimate Samples", the schedule states:
(9) Where the appropriate consent to the taking of an intimate sample from a person was refused without good cause, in any proceedings against that person for an offence—

(a) the court, in determining—
(i) whether to commit that person for trial; or
(ii) whether there is a case to answer; and



(b) the court or jury, in determining whether that person is guilty of the offence charged,
may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper; and the refusal may, on the basis of such inferences, be treated as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any evidence against the person in relation to which the refusal is material.
That seems good.
What is "without good cause"? As I understand it, that has not been defined. Would the nature of a person's religion constitute good cause? What sort of inference would be drawn from a person's refusing to give an intimate sample of his semen because he might regard that as the sin of Onan—a mortal sin? Would it be regarded as good cause if a Christian Scientist refused to give a sample because that represented an attack on the body? I am not asking these questions flippantly. We need definitions because people's dignity is affected as much by religious attitudes to such matters as by a dislike of physical assault. The increasing use of DNA can become of the utmost importance in establishing identity.
Section 62(8) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act provides:
If an intimate sample is taken from a person detained at a police station, the matters required to be recorded by subsection (7) above shall be recorded in his custody record.
There appears to be no similar requirement for Northern Ireland, which has a different provision of which I heartily approve. Are there any real differences of substance between the procedures in Northern Ireland and those in the United Kingdom? Would the procedures within the RUC cover the matter contained in section 62(8) about custody records? I do not know; the House is entitled to know.
I welcome the provision:
An intimate sample, other than a sample of urine, may only be taken from a person by a registered medical practitioner.
That is useful and proper.
The English legislation covering these matters refers to "serious arrestable offences". The schedule gives a list of precise offences; to a degree, they are already covered in the English legislation. Is anything in the Northern Ireland legislation not contained in the English, Scottish or Welsh legislation—or vice versa? In other words, are serious arrestable offences synonymous with the list in the schedule to the new clause?
The answer to my final question may be an historical one. One of the serious arrestable offences in the United Kingdom is
incest with a girl under the age of 13".
In Northern Ireland, the age is 14. Similarly, section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 governing the United Kingdom lays down that
intercourse with a girl under the age of 13
is such an offence. Again, in Northern Ireland, the corresponding age is 14. I take it that those are historical accidents arising from old jurisdiction.
The new clause is too important to have been introduced in this way and tacked on as a mere appendage to a piece of English legislation. There are mechanisms for introducing similar Northern Ireland legislation, for all the failings in the way in which the House treats these mattes. A debate under such mechanisms might raise different matters for discussion. We should have had an opportunity to discuss this in far more detail in Committee.
It would be helpful if the House were told whom the Government consulted. Did they merely consult the RUC? I can understand why the RUC wants this power. Why did the Government not issue a full consultative document? Why, instead of giving weak and thin excuses, did they not tell the House earlier of their proposals so that we could have dealt with the Bill in a more workmanlike manner?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The effect of new clause 82 is to ensure that there is symmetry between the powers available to the police in Northern Ireland and those available to the police in England and Wales for the taking of non-intimate samples.
Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I believe that no hon. Member could object to the application to Northern Ireland of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 powers and responsibilities for the taking of intimate and non-intimate samples to achieve successful prosecutions against the evil men who perpetrate terror or traffic in drugs.
I am very much with my hon. Friend the Minister on the principal argument about which the Government are seeking to persuade the House. My criticism is not so much that the Government are asking the House to apply those powers to Northern Ireland as that when they were asked—among others by myself—when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was proceeding through the House for an inordinate length of time, the Government were not willing to do that and said that Northern Ireland was different. Apparently, at least in this respect, events in Northern Ireland over the past four or five years have not made Northern Ireland different. We shall apply the main body of the Police and. Criminal Evidence Act requirements to the Bill, which is entirely correct.
Where I must depart from my hon. Friend is that the Bill is not simply applying the same rules that apply in England and Wales but goes a step further. He is saying, "Let us apply the Police and Criminal Evidence Act rules to intimate and non-intimate samples exactly as they are and have been in England and Wales for the past five years, but let us add one more—the ability to take the swab between the lip and gum to assist police in Northern Ireland with what is rather fancifully called DNA profiling, but which ordinary people would more easily recognise as genetic fingerprinting."
The Minister is entirely right to say that the RUC needs to be able to take swabs. They will be of material help in dealing with terrorist and drug offences. What I cannot understand is why it is right to provide powers to the RUC but deny them to the Metropolitan police and the other police forces on this side of the water which deal with the same offences.
If the House agrees to the Government's proposals—I hope that it will—a wanted terrorist or suspected drug trafficker could be stopped at Belfast airport and a swab taken between his lip and gum, which could establish that he is the wanted person or, just as important, eliminate him from the investigation. But once that same man gets across to Heathrow airport the Metropolitan police will not be able to take a swab between the lip and the gum.
As I said earlier, I am very much in favour of symmetry between the powers available and the responsibilities of the police in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales. It makes for consistency and greater public accountability.


It makes it easier for the public to understand what is going on if the powers of the police are the same. Parliament ought to have some very good reasons if it allows the powers and responsibilities of the Queen's police on either side of St. George's channel to be materially different.
I have had to ask myself what can be the reason why the police service in England and Wales, and as far as I know in Scotland, is to be denied powers to deal with drug trafficking and terrorism which the RUC and the Government have concluded are imperative in Northern Ireland—so imperative that they must be imported into a Bill so that it applies to Northern Ireland not merely those matters that we have fully debated in Committee but new powers that we have not debated at all.
I have to say in reply to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that I do not believe that the Government are committing any grave error in importing the PACE powers into this Bill. Those powers were thoroughly discussed in the longest Committee stage that the House has ever known—indeed, they were discussed twice, because there were two Committee stages —and no sections were discussed more thoroughly than those dealing with intimate sampling.
But one power was not discussed at all, and that is the one that is being brought in tonight for Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland alone, so that there is no opportunity to consult the people on that and no opportunity to consider whether it is relevant. I think that it is, but others may think that it is not. I believe with the hon. Gentleman that, at least on that narrow point, the Government have treated the House quite improperly.
I am very sorry that it falls again to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office to be presenting this matter. He is one of my favourite Ministers. He has been an excellent addition to the team in Northern Ireland and has done many things there that will make him highly regarded by the police service in Northern Ireland. He is, indeed, the first Northern Ireland Minister who has brought forward these powers, which we have wanted in the RUC for many years, and I thank him for that. I regret very much that, once again, as in the case of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, he has to explain the inexplicable.
There is no ground for these powers being provided, in the case of the swab, in Northern Ireland and denied to the Metropolitan police dealing with terrorism and drugs in precisely the same fashion. His argument is that things in Northern Ireland are very much more horrendous than those in England and Wales. That is true in respect of terrorism, but not in respect of drug trafficking. Genetic fingerprinting—DNA profiling—is just as relevant to drug trafficking as to terrorism. Therefore, the case does not stand up on that count.
I must not trespass into private correspondence that has been exchanged, but I was told that the Home Office's reason for not including these powers for the Metropolitan police and the other police forces over here was that they did not ask for them. I immediately asked the police why they had not asked for them, and that was not their account of events at all. When I enquired of the Metropolitan Commissioner whether his men needed this power to take a swab to deal with a terrorist or drugs trafficker, four separate groups within the Metropolitan

police—special operations, Deputy Assistant Commissioner (Crime), the forensic branch and one other dealing with specialist criminal cases—said unanimously that they needed these powers. But the Home Office said that they did not need them.
I do not believe that that is right. I believe that the Government should not discriminate between the powers and responsibilities of the police in Northern Ireland and the powers and responsibilities of the police in England and Wales. The police in England and Wales need DNA profiling and power to take the swab. I cannot understand why those powers are to be provided to the RUC but denied to the police on this side of the water.

Mr. Roy Beggs: My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) had occasion and good reason to complain bitterly recently about the extension of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill to Northern Ireland. The Government were wrong to extend that Bill to Northern Ireland on Report without giving proper notice or reasonable opportunity for Northern Ireland Members to consult their constituents. Large parts of this Bill can be extended to Northern Ireland by Order in Council. Obviously the Government did not adequately think through the implications, for they have yet again at a late stage brought in new clause 80 to extend this important power the Northern Ireland. However, we appreciate that the Government, through the Minister of State, wrote to the leader of the Ulster Unionist group to inform us that the intention was to table the new clause which would make it apply to Northern Ireland.
I welcome the new clause in that it would bring to the statute book in Northern Ireland essentially the same provisions for the taking of body samples of those suspected of serious crimes as have already been passed into law for England and Wales in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I note the proposal to depart from the provisions for England and Wales in only one relatively minor respect. The Minister has outlined the reasons for this so-called minor departure which will give one additional power to the RUC to assist it in genetic fingerprinting, the term more easily understood by most people.
Our basic complaint about the Bill remains the same: that the procedure for governing Northern Irelad is still unsatisfactory. In some ways the Bill is a prime example of the unsatisfactory system of legislating for Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why the sections listed in clause 160 could not be applied directly to Northern Ireland along with other legislation for the rest of the United Kingdom. Clause 164 lists the parts of the Bill which apply directly to Northern Ireland. Thus, our demand to have the same law-making process is strengthened.
I welcome steps being taken to bring the statute law in Northern Ireland on the taking of body samples into line with that in England and Wales. I trust that the new powers will increase the effectiveness of the police in their investigations into serious crimes. May I record my personal sympathy and that of my constituents to the relatives of the young soldiers who were brutally murdered last night. I hope that the new powers will assist the RUC in bringing to justice at an early date those who have hitherto escaped prosecution.
I do not intend to oppose the new clause but wish to register the desire of Ulster Unionists that legislation for


Northern Ireland should not be treated as an afterthought but included at every opportunity as part of United Kingdom legislation.

Mr. Worthington: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who asked why police on the mainland were not allowed to use the same techniques as are to be made available in Northern Ireland. Is the Home Office unwilling to allow the police in England, Wales and Scotland to use this technique because of their stance on immigration? People from the Indian sub-continent in particular who have sought admission to this country must prove their relationship with relatives here. This technique, which would establish the relationship and prove that they could come to this country, has been denied them. Is it possible that a consequence of extending this power to the Metropolitan police is to make it more difficult for the Home Office——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The new clause extends powers to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Worthington: I am grateful for your guidance, Sir, but the issue was raised of the extension of those powers to England, Wales and Scotland. The House has been asked why it should not be possible to have these powers in this country, and I was putting forward a possible reason.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The Minister's explanation of why the provisions in new clause 80 should be applied to Northern Ireland and were not in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has been described as thin. It was unsatisfactory. The explanation seemed to be that the Government had not done their homework. We can accept that people do not do their homework at various stages, so there is a need for action later. We hope that by the time action is taken the homework has been completed.
We are not given confidence by the fact that the measure has been slipped in at this late stage. It is of such significance that it is to be included in the title, through amendment No. 70. It appears to be an afterthought. Some of us who stayed during the night of the debate on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill objected strongly to Northern Ireland's treatment. I should have thought that Northern Ireland, with its vast problems and difficulties —of which we are very conscious today—should be dealt with by the House with more care than any other part of the United Kingdom and should be up front in terms of provisions.
We have just passed new clause 72, on torture. Subsection (3) states:
It is immaterial whether the pain or suffering is physical or mental and whether it is caused by an act or an omission.
I do not think that there is a definition of intimate searches in the 1984 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) gave one definition. On 1 March 1984, when Standing Committee E was dealing with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, the definition in clause 58 was the taking of
a sample of blood, semen or any other tissue fluid, urine, saliva or pubic hair, or a swab taken from the genital or rectal area of a person's body.
If we are discussing such provision for Northern Ireland and the control of torture, we need to link the two.
People in senior positions who are required to act under the new clause may nevertheless be subject, in highly tense situations, to taking action that may not be entirely justified. That does not necessarily lead us to reject the new clause but it means that the matter requires a great deal of thought and investigation. It cannot be that by adding provisions relating to Northern Ireland we are simply covering something that happens to have been missed, because the effect of other provisions in the Bill on Northern Ireland also needs the most serious thought. We should at least protest strongly about the cavalier way in which Northern Ireland has been dealt with.

Mr. William Cash: I am very interested in new clause 80. It does not seem to me that there is any reasonable justification for distinguishing what goes on in the United Kingdom as a whole from what goes on in Northern Ireland, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will explain why he has confined the new clause to non-intimate samples. Perhaps I have missed something, but amendment No. 196, the new schedule, deals with two different types of sample, one of which is intimate and the other of which is not. On the basis of my right hon. Friend's compelling logic, I do not see why he has distinguished between the two.
It is important to ensure that we manage to apprehend people, bring them to trial and find them guilty, by using modern methods and techniques of surveillance and forensic science. We should therefore have the best possible means available to ensure that that happens. I cannot for the life of me understand why there should be a different regime in Northern Ireland from that in England for rape, murder and the other offences set out in the schedule. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will explain.

Mr. Stanley: I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for the substance of the new clause and the addition of the mouth swab to the range of non-intimate samples. He asked whether advances in DNA profiling would make the taking of intimate samples unnecessary in the future. I am advised that this may eventually prove to be the case. It is difficult to predict the likely course of research but it is certainly not so at the moment and, it is unlikely that in the near future we shall be able to rest solely on non-intimate samples.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that from another point of view it is desirable to retain the statutory power to take intimate samples, as such samples can be taken only with the consent of the suspect. They are taken on an entirely voluntary basis. Some individuals may prefer voluntarily to agree to give a blood sample than to be told that their only option is to give a non-intimate sample, which can be taken compulsorily. A balance must be struck, and the House may feel that it would always be desirable to retain the option of taking an intimate sample, with the caveat of the consent of the suspect being required.
The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North, for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) asked why this group of amendments was being introduced into the Bill. I sought to explain that in my opening remarks. We rightly and justifiably have been reluctant to avoid breaking up the PACE leglisation for Northern Ireland if possible. All those who have been involved in the England and Wales PACE legislation will


appreciate that it was introduced as an integrated balancing package. We have with reluctance decided to separate a segment of that legislation—that relating to body samples—for the reasons I explained.
It became apparent that with the complexity of the PACE order and the course that the Bill has taken there would be a material time advantage in getting these powers in the hands of the RUC. I hope the House will understand that with our real responsibilities for law and order and security in Northern Ireland it did not seem right to let pass the opportunity of putting these essential powers on to the statute book and into the hands of the RUC possibly a year earlier than would otherwise be the case.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: The Minister has not yet addressed the basic underlying principle involved. He is saying that because of Government inefficiency the principle of democracy and consultation has been ignored. That is the point that my hon. Friends have made and I want him to deal with it.

Mr. Stanley: That is not entirely fair, because we are not introducing legislation that is completely new. We are simply replicating legislation that has gone through a detailed and extensive process of examination in the United Kingdom Parliament. I take the hon. Lady's point that we have not been able to go through a specific consultation process in the Northern Ireland context. That is a fair point. On the other hand, this is virtually a duplication of legislation that has been the subject of extensive debate and consultation over many years, and a balance must be struck. We must ask ourselves how long it is right to deny the RUC, with its crucial law enforcement responsibilities, the powers that are available to police forces elsewhere in England and Wales.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North asked whether I would give an undertaking that the Government would never again proceed by adding amendments on Report to Bills such as this to apply provisions to Northern Ireland. He will not be surprised to learn that I cannot give that blanket undertaking. We have taken this course with some reluctance, as with the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to acknowledge—he has already done so in his remarks and in his response to today's statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—that we face an exceptionally serious security situation in Northern Ireland. In those circumstances, it is incumbent on us to put to the House proposals that we believe are necessary to reinforce our ability and that of the RUC to deal with that serious security situation.

Mr. McNamara: I hope that I shall not be up and down like a yo-yo. If the Minister cannot give me that undertaking, can he say that when the new clause goes to the other place, Members there will be able to see the code of practice? Can he also answer the point that I raised earlier? Will "good reason" cover religious objection?

Mr. Stanley: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's latter point in a moment. I shall do my best to put the code of practice into a form that we can give to Members of the other House. That will depend upon the time scale of the Bill, but we shall do our best to bring that forward. It will be based on the code of practice for England and Wales

and will need some modifications to deal with the variations in Northern Ireland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will rest his case on that.
9.45 pm
The hon. Gentleman's detailed point about how the courts might construe the phrase "without good cause", referred to in paragraph 7(9) of the schedule, will ultimately be a matter for the courts and they will have to interpret the legislation. I am advised that good cause could be interpreted to include religious objections or medical difficulties, but it will be for the courts to determine that. The phrase being used here is exactly the same as that used in the England and Wales legislation.
The hon. Gentleman referred to semen being taken as an intimate sample. In practice, the only way in which a specific intimate sample is likely to be taken for DNA profiling purposes would be through a blood sample.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to custody records. Very detailed custody records are retained under existing procedures by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and I understand that the practical procedures that have already been adopted amount to the same as those in England and Wales.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether for the purpose of these amendments the definition of a serious arrestable offence is the same in Northern Ireland as in England and Wales. The definitions and types of offences deemed to be covered by the amendments are exactly the same as in England and Wales, with the one exception to which I referred—the inclusion of those arrested under section 12(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 which, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, is relevant to, and necessary in, Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman also asked for an explanation of the differences in ages in respect of sexual offences against children. I confirm that his supposition is correct and that the slight differences in ages in the schedule compared with those in England and Wales legislation relate to historical differences between Northern Ireland and England and Wales legislation.
I turn now to new clause 82. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) for his kind comments, coupled with some notes of criticism, which I took very much in the spirit that he put them forward. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) referred to the same point and asked why the provisions, particularly the extension of non-intimate samples to include mouth swabs, were not being followed in England and Wales by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The need for a slightly wider definition of non-intimate samples in Northern Ireland arises because of the more determined and systematic attempts made by criminals in Northern Ireland, compared with those by criminals on the mainland, to withhold and conceal evidence of forensic value to the police.
Unwillingness to give consent for the taking of intimate samples is not something that has hitherto been put to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary by the police as causing particular problems in England and Wales. My hon. Friend will understand that if the police can obtain intimate samples, usually a blood sample, that will yield all the necessary material for DNA profiling to take place. I


understand that a recent study by the Home Office of 5,500 custody records did not include any instances of requests for intimate samples being refused.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary therefore did not think that he would be justified in bringing forward a proposal now for England and Wales to make mouth swabs non-intimate samples, but he is not opposed in principle to the idea of doing that. He intends to consult chief officers on whether the present classification of mouth swabs in England and Wales as intimate samples is causing difficulty. He will certainly consider the possibility of making a similar change in England and Wales at some future date.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: With respect, my right hon. Friend is not saying very much if he is saying that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not opposed to this in principle. The Cabinet collectively put forward the proposal to bring in DNA sampling in Northern Ireland. The principle must be accepted collectively by the entire Cabinet and all the Secretaries of State. Therefore, of course my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary accepts the principle. However, I have a simple point. A man in Northern Ireland whom the police may wish to check by DNA profiling for drug trafficking or terrorist offences may be checked at Belfast airport, but if he eludes them and arrives at Heathrow, he cannot be checked there. Where is the logic in that?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend has made a perfectly reasonable point about people moving from one part of the jurisdiction to another. I am sure that that point will be made to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he consults the chief officers. At present my right hon. Friend does not believe that it is necessary, given the apparent ease with which intimate samples are obtained in England and Wales, which is certainly not the case in Northern Ireland, to make the small extension to mouth swabs which we feel is necessary in Northern Ireland in the definition of non-intimate samples.
I hope that I have already explained some of the distinctions between intimate and non-intimate samples to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). The basic reason for separating them is that the procedures are different. The essential difference is that a non-intimate sample can be taken without the consent of the suspect, while an intimate sample requires the suspect's consent before it can be taken. I hope that I have responded to all the points that were raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW BODY

'1. The Secretary of State shall establish an Independent Review Body to advise him on the annulment, cancellation or revocation of a conviction applicable to cases currently considered by himself and by the Court of Appeal.
2 The Independent Review Body shall consist of a legally qualified Chairman and up to 12 additional persons appointed by the Secretary of State.
3. Membership will include a proportion of criminal lawyers but legal experience will not be regarded as the sole qualification.
4. Casework would be distributed to a panel of up to three persons but in all cases the conclusions would be endorsed by the Review Body as a whole.

5. The Review Body would be extra-judicial but would have the widest discretion as to the procedures to be adopted in any individual case.
6. The Independent Review Body would be supplied with the relevant facts and papers relating to a case by the Home Office and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State after either

(a) an informal inquiry or
(b) a full hearing with legal representation on both sides with the ability to recommend the award of legal aid in respect of representation by Counsel.'.—[Sir John Farr.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir John Farr: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment (a) to the new clause, to leave out
'currently considered by himself and by the Court of Appeal'
and insert
`in respect of which representations have been made to him.
(1A) The independent review body shall determine which cases, falling within subsection 1, it shall consider after consulting the Secretary of State.'.

Sir John Farr: New clause 2 puts into effect the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Home Affairs which has never been debated. The Select Committee reported in 1982 and recommended, among other things, that an independent review body of the type described in new clause 2 should be established by the House as soon as possible.
That Select Committee was an all-party committee and after exhaustive discussions there were no dissenting names to the recommendation. As the House has never debated its recommendation, now is a useful opportunity to do so. New clause 2 embodies exactly the recommendation made by that Select Committee in 1982.
Some of the hon. Members who made that decision six years ago are no longer hon. Members. The Chairman of that Committee is now in another place. However, four hon. Members are still in this place and I have notified them that I will mention them today. They are my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster, North (M r. Wheeler), for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), for Reigate (M r. Gardiner)—who was a member of the Select Committee for only part of the time—and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). They shared in the unanimous recommendation, and I am sure that they may see what they can do to get the new clause on the statute book later.
Those of us who read the report will recall that the excellent Select Committee on miscarriages of justice made two other recommendations, both of which were implemented by the Government of the day. In its deliberations the Select Committee called for the establishment of a Crown prosecution service, and we now have that. It called also for a remedy to be taken in relation to ineffective sentencing; in other words, the right of appeal against a sentence considered to be too lenient. Both recommendations have been adopted. Strangely enough, hon. Members on both sides of the House think that the most important of its recommendations was for the establishment of an independent review body, but that has not been acted upon by the Government.
At the hub of the report's recommendations is the establishment of the review body. One might ask why that recommendation was made—it was a unanimous conclusion in 1982. The Select Committee heard a number of witnesses, including representatives of the Criminal Bar


Association, which submitted a memorandum proposing a tribunal even more elaborate than the one proposed in my new clause. The Criminal Bar Association, with its expert knowledge, proposed a tribunal with a secretariat and what one might call a full legal aid system covering all its actions.
Sir David Napley was invited to give the Law Society's views, and he supported a form of independent panel. In his letter to the clerk of July 1982, Sir David said that on a number of occasions people had expressed to him their sense of disquiet about particular cases and had pointed out that as appellate courts, either on appeal or on reference under section 17, had refused to interfere with the verdict, they felt themselves unable to intervene. Sir David went on to comment that he had no doubt that a significant number of the injustices that occur are attributable to the studied policy of the Court of Criminal Appeal and that during his professional life he found that it was its practice to avoid holding retrials.
Sir David Napley was not the only person strongly in favour of some form of independent tribunal. Nearly all the information I am giving the House comes from the recommendations of the Select Committee which considered this matter. Among the witnesses that the Select Committee heard in 1982 were representatives of Amnesty International and views were given on behalf of Lord Devlin, who, in his book, criticised the role of the Court of Appeal.
Some of the decisions that have been made by the Court of Appeal in recent years, certainly since the Select Committee sat in 1982, have caused a great deal of anxiety.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Ordered, 
That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]may be proceded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Bill, as amended, again considered.

Sir John Farr: A number of the decisions that have been taken by the Court of Appeal since 1982 have caused a good deal of anxiety. It has been said that the Court of Appeal has increasingly taken upon itself the role of deciding cases once and for all, which has given rise to serious criticism.
The Select Committee, in its findings, pointed out that the Home Secretary has the power to set up independent tribunals without further legislation. Indeed, in the Confait case and the Timothy Evans case, that was done. However, since 1982 the power seems to have fallen into disuse.
Lord Devlin, in his book and in a lecture to All Souls college, criticised the present system. He said of the Luton murder case a few years ago, that Cooper and McMahon were sent back to the Court of Appeal four times and each time the appeal was rejected by that court.
In his book, Lord Devlin specifically argues that the Court of Appeal is no longer providing the guarantee in Britain of the right to trial by jury in cases that involve fresh evidence. Instead, as Lord Devlin said, half the evidence can be heard before one forum—the jury—and the other half, the fresh evidence that may come to light subsequently, can be heard by an entirely different forum —the Court of Appeal—many years later. Lord Devlin

went on to say that in his view that violates the principle of right to trial by jury in which it is axiomatic that one forum should hear all the evidence and assess it.
In addition, the Court of Appeal's approach in, for instance, the Birmingham and Guildford cases and the four cases of Cooper and McMahon, appear to demand a different standard of proof from that dictated by the constitution. Instead of the prosecution having to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in the above three cases and others, it seems that the defence has had to prove the innocence of the defendants beyond reasonable doubt.

Ms. Clare Short: Surely the Cooper and McMahon case is a clear example of the malfunctioning of our ability to review miscarriages of justice. That case was referred to the Court of Appeal on a number of occasions and was constantly refused. In the end, the Home Office decided that they should be released. The matter was deeply embarrassing because everybody knew that those men were not guilty. Surely our experience of that case shows that the present system for reviewing miscarriages of justice does not work, and if it is not changed our criminal justice system will be brought into disrepute.

Sir John Farr: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks. No doubt she will be able to make her contribution later.
Another criticism that was considered by the Select Committee related to the view that was held by many people, as expressed in the Tucker and Donovan reports some years ago, that that approach by the Court of Appeal nullifies the right to a retrial provided in the Criminal Appeals Act 1968.
The Tucker and Donovan reports, dealing with youth trials in criminal cases and with the Court of Criminal Appeal, specify that new evidence should be put before a jury for retrial. The present approach of the Court of Appeal denies that, in that unless the Court of Appeal is satisfied of the innocence of the accused it will not quash the conviction and order a retrial. The Court of Appeal tends to demand instead that appellants as a first prerequisite convince three judges of their innocence.
For a number of years there has been informed criticism of the Court of Appeal. Critics have included Lord Scarman and Lord Devlin. The organisation Justice for many years expressed serious disquiet at our inability to undo clear miscarriages of justice. It could be said that if we establish an independent tribunal, a proposal that new clause 2 has extracted from the Select Committee recommendations, we shall go a considerable way towards correcting miscarriages of justice.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: It has always seemed quite wrong to me that the Home Secretary, when rejecting appeals, gives no reasons for his rejection. If the new clause were adopted and the tribunal set up, would the reasons for consideration and rejection be made public?

Sir John Farr: That was touched on at some length during the Select Committee hearings. All the Committee's members expressed the feeling that much of the proceedings in the present system wore an unnecessary cloak of secrecy and should be much more open, giving appellants a better chance to understand why their case had failed. That is all dealt with in the Select Committee report.
In cases such as that of the Birmingham six—there has been considerable doubt about the wisdom of the Court of Appeal's decision recently—the Home Secretary has the power to initiate a review, as was done by the then Home Secretary in the Timothy Evans and Confait cases. In addition, the Home Secretary could act as my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Whitelaw did. He released Cooper and McMahon after three unsuccessful references by three different Home Secretaries to the Court of Appeal. That approach, however, is not altogether satisfactory because it still leaves convicted murderers who have no right to compensation or to have their names cleared. Some of us feel that much the best thing to do is to establish the additional tribunal of inquiry as the Select Committee recommended.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that what he is recommending is an additional tier within our judicial system—and, what is more, a court that would not necessarily be composed of judges or people of long judicial experience, yet would have the power to overrule all our courts, without the slightest real qualification to overrule what has served the country for at least 100 years and served it well?

Sir John Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose expertise in legal matters we all recognise. I ask him to look at the Select Committee's recommendations in paragraph 32, on page viii. After several days of consideration, and having examined many expert witnesses, the Select Committee said:
We conclude by summing up the general effect of our recommendations. We would wish to see a revised procedure for the handling of alleged miscarriages of justice which would operate as follows. Petitions from convicted persons would continue to be directed to the Home Office and would be examined in the first instance by officials. If it appeared to them that new evidence, defined in the way we suggest, had emerged since the trial, the case would be referred to an independent review body whose Chairman would allocate it to one or more of its members for consideration, or submit it to a formal hearing if necessary. The review body would then advise the Home Secretary either not to intervene or to invoke the Royal Prerogative in order to remit the sentence or to set aside the conviction.
That unanimous recommendation has never been discussed in the House. If new clause 2 were to be adopted, the establishment of this body would achieve a fairer system for dealing with legal affairs than is the case at the moment.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I rise to offer the Opposition's support for the new clause and to add that, if the measure is too radical for the Government, our amendment would be a fallback. We do not regard that as desirable; we should prefer the new clause to be passed into law as it stands. Nevertheless, we offer the amendment as a possible escape route if the Government regard the new clause, modest though it is, as too extreme to adopt. It is a hypothesis that the Government regard the new clause as too extreme. No reasonable person could so describe it. It was the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee, one of whose Members was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight).
The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) has proposed a modest and, in our view, necessary change to the law. Let me explain why I regard it as a modest change.

I do not believe that it would add another tier to the judicial system. In a sense, that additional tier is there. The Home Secretary could recommend a review.

Ms. Short: The additional tier is not really the Home Secretary, but a section of the Home Office. A number of officials review cases and make recommendations to the Home Secretary. The additional tier is inundated with files. It consists of efficient, or inefficient, civil servants who are never called upon to answer for their recommendations. The Select Committee has recommended a much more efficient and open system for conducting reviews.

Mr. Hattersley: The theoretical tier is Home Office civil servants who prepare papers and make recommendations to the Home Secretary, on the basis of which he has to form a judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), with her special and, dare I say, inside knowledge of these events, is right to draw the House's attention to the fact that the tribunal replaces what is not essentially the established Civil Service making recommendations on these matters. I regard civil servants as wholly inappropriate for that task, not because I am suggesting that they are corrupt or partial, but because they are unqualified, and by their nature they are likely to perform the task badly.
As I understand it, the new clause is in no way an attack on the Home Secretary's judgment or integrity. It is simply an assertion that he is incapable of carrying such a burden, and it is intolerable to ask him to carry it. Therefore, something rather more appropriate should be put in its place.
10.15 pm
The hon. Member for Harborough was right to say that it was not possible to move the new clause tonight without thinking about some of the occasions when a judicial review would seem or might have seemed appropriate. All hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, and certainly all hon. Members who vote in the Division, will think of the Guildford bombing, the Birmingham bombing and Maguire, and will consider that on other occasions the operation of such a review system at the very least would have reduced genuine, understandable and legitimate public disquiet. The review might even have changed verdicts, certainly when it was examining verdicts which in my view were over-reliant on evidence obtained through confession of the convicted parties. Even if it were not to have that result, it would have the advantage of reducing the very genuine concern that is felt about many cases in which a miscarriage of justice is either suspected or alleged.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Is the intention behind the new clause that evidence which would not normally be admissible in the criminal courts should be considered by the tribunal?

Mr. Hattersley: Of course. One concern is that when matters go to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal considers the case on what I will call, without wanting to be dismissive or offensive, legal technicalities. The Court of Appeal is inclined to say, or perhaps is required to say, not, "Is this man innocent or guilty?" but, "Have the regularities of the law been observed?" We are aiming for a tier—if the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) cares to put it that way—or an institution, if one wants to describe it in other terms, which will not necessarily come


to an adjudication, but will consider whether the new merits of the case require a further fundamental examination, not whether previous legal technicalities have been observed.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: rose——

Mr. Devlin: rose——

Mr. Hattersley: I can see that the hon. Gentlemen are burgeoning, but, before either of them blossom, let me make another point.
The description that I have given of our reservations about the Court of Appeal's commitment to the technicalities is not necessarily a criticism of that tier of the law. That is its function; that is what it is supposed to do. We are not saying that it should be doing something different; we are saying that, by its nature, it is prevented from doing something different, and therefore something else has to be put in its place. We are all conscious that very senior and distinguished judges from time to time have said that the stability of the legal system—the reputation of the courts—sometimes requires avoiding admitting a mistake, even when one has occurred, rather than admitting the mistake and seeing that new justice is done. The idea of an independent body prevents that inbred feeling that the continuation of a proper reputation requires that mistakes should be overlooked rather than exposed.

Mr. Hind: Presumably the right hon. Gentleman envisages that the Court of Appeal will still hear the case. How does he see the relationship between the independent review body and the Court of Appeal and how the Court of Appeal would consider the recommendations and examinations of the review body? What weight would it place on those deliberations?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to think of the final verdict being taken by the Court of Appeal. Were I a prudent Member, I should say that he should address his question to the hon. Member for Harborough,

but I am rash enough to give my own answer. I see the body fulfilling a function which is or is not fulfilled by the Home Secretary and his civil servants. It is the trigger mechanism that starts off the inquiry. The judicial review that follows may be formed in a number of ways. It is essentially the process by which it is determined that a new investigation should be mounted. After that, some judicial body will examine it.
I emphasise that the Opposition want the new clause to be accepted, but we understand that for that to happen the tribunal might be involved in the examination of 2,000 or more cases a year. In the name of justice, that is a burden worth carrying by the Home Office; but if the Minister says that for some practical reason—such as that which requires the Home Office to cut down the number of civil servants dealing with immigration, but does not require the Treasury to reduce the number of civil servants dealing with minor fraud—it is not possible to deal with 2,000 cases a year, there is an amendment that prevents the Government from saying that such a practicality invalidates the entire principle. We should prefer the whole new clause to be passed, but there is a fallback position if the Government are doubtful about it.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: The Select Committee said that there would be about 2,500 cases, but pointed out that 90 per cent. of them were routine motoring offences, and cases of that sort. Only a small number of cases would go to the new body

Mr. Hattersley: I do not want the hon. Gentleman—still less the Minister—to believe for a moment that I am arguing that the new clause is unworkable. I am merely trying to prevent the Minister from saying that he will not accept it because it is unworkable. If that is his excuse, I hope that we have blocked it by providing a less satisfactory alternative that stops him saying that he likes the idea in principle but cannot afford it in practice. I hope that he likes it in principle and in practice and will accept the new clause in its entirety. That is what we shall support.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am not one of those who think that a recommendation by a Select Committee must necessarily have great authority in the House—least of all a recommendation by a Select Committee that can clearly be shown not to have gone into the facts and evidence in any great depth. I am a member of a Select Committee, and I must confess from personal experience that, composed as they are of busy hon. Members who have many other things to do, Select Committees often do not go into subjects as closely as those subjects require. The Chairman generally does the work.
I do not believe that any half dozen Members who are given a problem with which to deal and on which to report are necessarily endowed with any special authority, even of a representative kind. So my view of the apparently unanimous report of the Home Affairs Select Committee—issued slightly before the time when I joined it—is that it will not necessarily give us any great guidance.

Mr. Hattersley: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's theory of government—that half a dozen hon. Members do not have any particular authority. I take it that he believes that 650 do. What is the number at which authority begins to be assumed by a collection of Members of Parliament?

Mr. Stanbrook: That is an interesting question to come from the deputy Leader of the Opposition, who should know better. Half a dozen hon. Members could easily be chosen from among the most completely unrepresentative Members of the House. They could be put on a Committee to keep them quiet, or because they will take a particular course of action. There are all sorts of reasons why hon. Members get themselves on Select Committees. That was especially true in the days before the great reform that was achieved when the Government came to power.

Ms. Short: For what reason does the hon. Gentleman think that one hon. Member appointed as a Minister—we all have views of the way in which ministerial appointments are made and the sort of people who hold those positions—would have more authority, independence and time to review miscarriages of justice in serious detail than six members of a Select Committee?

Mr. Stanbrook: I do not think that the way in which we select Ministers is better, more representative, more clever, more sensible or more logical. Much depends on individual preferences and the colour of their eyes or shoes. However, the collective will of the House must be expressed. It is expressed when votes are taken in the Chamber and every one of the 650 Members of Parliament has an opportunity to say what he or she thinks. Shame on those who vote according to what the Whips tell them and not according to their own consciences.
The proof that the Home Affairs Select Committee went wildly wrong in its recommendations is contained in the first part of the new clause, which factually is quite wrong. It says:
The Secretary of State shall establish an Independent Review Body to advise him on the annulment, cancellation or revocation of a conviction applicable to cases currently being considered by himself and by the Court of Appeal.
The Home Secretary does not have that power. His only power is to refer cases back to the judicial system. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Wrong."

Ms. Short: Free pardon?

Mr. Stanbrook: That is an entirely different dimension. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) is suggesting that the Home Secretary has power to annul, cancel or revoke a conviction. He has not; he has power only to refer to the judicial system cases that he is satisfied deserve re-examination. All the blather in which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) indulged gave a misleading impression.
The proposal is that the Home Secretary should have the right to consider a problem, have his civil servants consider it and say that the jury, the Court of Appeal, and the House of Lords were wrong and that for that reason the case must be reconsidered. That is quite wrong. The proposal is quite outrageous. It suggests that the system of justice that has been established in this country for at least 1,000 years is wrong and inappropriate. For hundreds of years we have followed a system by which a conviction may be reviewed by legally qualified courts in the presence of a jury to establish the truth or falsity of the evidence.
If there is any perceived error in the verdict of the jury, which is advised and directed by the judge, we have a system of appeal. At that stage the Court of Appeal looks at the record of the whole case—and there is even provision for extra evidence—and if, in the minds of those learned gentlemen who are experienced in these matters, all of whom have probably been trial judges, there has been a miscarriage, they allow the appeal or give appropriate directions about a retrial. If it is still contended that there is a point of law, there is a right to take the matter to the House of Lords, our ultimate court of appeal.
10.30 pm
It is proposed in the new clause that all that should be set aside and that a so-called independent—which presumably means independent of the judicial system—review body should have powers above those of the existing judicial system and be able to set aside verdicts which have been arrived at by our present time-honoured system.

Sir John Farr: My hon. Friend has it wrong. The Home Secretary has powers to grant a free pardon, a conditional pardon or the remission of all or part of the penalty imposed by the court. We claim in the new clause that, if he had a tribunal to advise him in the exercise of those powers, he would use them more efficiently.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am obliged for that elucidation of the case. Of course, my hon. Friend is talking about the power to recommend the exercise of the Queen's prerogative by the Home Secretary, who is an officer of the state and who is bound by rules which have evolved over the years.
The new clause proposes a different, separate tier within, or superior to, the judicial system, one composed not of judges with wide and long experience of the operation of the criminal law but of people who would bring to it fresh minds, apparently people who would be untrammelled by the rules of evidence. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that it was a virtue of the proposed system that they should not be lawyers or be trammelled by legal rules. Under the proposed system they would not have to bother with rules of evidence.

Ms. Short: We are interested in justice and are concerned for people who have been wrongly convicted. We are worried by the fact that our system cannot deliver


justice to people who are wrongly convicted. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), a lawyer and member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, would not wish to mislead the House by suggesting that we are proposing powers that do not already exist.
The Home Secretary has powers to refer cases to the Court of Appeal, to refer them back to, or not to, a jury, to release people, to set up a tribunal and to release people with or without a free pardon. He exercises those powers all the time, so the hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House. Although he rightly claims that our system has worked well for thousands of years, that system has evolved, has changed and has been improved over the years. We are now looking for an improvement because it is not working well.

Mr. Stanbrook: The hon. Lady is right to say that this is about justice. Over the centuries this nation has evolved a system which gets as close to justice in any individual case as it is humanly possible to get. She is saying that some people allege that certain cases were wrongly decided —that the jury made a wrong decision and that experienced judges, on looking at the whole case, thought the jury were right. Nevertheless, she says that, because there was a wrongful conviction, this system must be set wholly aside so that there may be created a new power for many people who may be laymen, so far as one knows, observing rules of their own, denying all the roots and experience of history.

Mr. Ashby: Has my hon. Friend considered that the reason for the prerogative is the straitjacket which is imposed by the judicial system? It is there in order that justice may be achieved despite the judicial system. It is really the prerogative that we are talking about. It exists but is merely a different way of achieving it.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am not inviting my hon. Friend to interrupt me again, but is he suggesting that because the judicial system sometimes gets it wrong there must be imported into it somebody answerable not to the judicial system, not subject to the rules of evidence, but some abstract concept of justice of their own, not subject to any rule of any principles whatsoever?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Stanbrook: I am endeavouring to make my speech and then I will sit down.
Somebody untrammelled by all the historical devices which we have evolved to produce justice in courts will be able to upset decisions made within the existing judicial system. I am surprised that my hon. Friend, being a member of the Bar, should suggest that our legal system is not capable and should be amended and modified to meet fresh demands which are made upon it. Historically it always has been. The whole concept of equity was evolved because we were sticking too closely to legalistic notions and we had to have a new system allied to the old but within the judicial system, staffed by lawyers, who could see the equity in any problem. We have had comparatively recently in contemporary terms a judge, Lord Denning, who himself evolved the law to meet the needs of modern society and modern problems.

Mr. Archer: I seriously want to understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he saying that there ought not to be a prerogative power, or is his complaint simply that the new clause as drafted goes beyond the prerogative power? If it is the former, apparently he wishes to take away the power which already exists.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am not saying that there should not be a prerogative power, but I am saying that it should only be exercised on behalf of Her Majesty, subject to recommendation, by an officer of the Crown, which is the present system. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend, in trying to deal with a perceived problem, wants to import into our judicial system something which has none of the restraints or the framework which have been built in to protect other citizens against the abuse of power.
If we provide outside our judicial system a body which can upset the decisions of all the courts below, we shall demolish the whole system and its importance. There will be no restriction on the number of people who may apply to the independent review body, once they get the chance. No one could ever be convicted in future without saying afterwards that he had the right to go to a bunch of largely laymen to set aside his conviction.
The review body will be totally overworked. It will not work for the right reason anyway. The principle remains that if we are to have a system of justice it has to be formed on the basis of experience and qualifications, and it has to be within the established rules and the rules of evidence which apply. Certainly let us modify it, but do not let us destroy it completely.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I thought at one stage that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was going down a dangerous road. He started by saying that the House of Commons could be wrong —we could face that—and that Select Committees and Ministers could be wrong, and I thought that at any minute he would say that Prime Ministers could be wrong. The hon. Gentleman is right. I want to take the argument further and say that juries and the Court of Appeal can be wrong. We must investigate that aspect. To say that is to mean no disrespect. We are talking about relatively few cases. Home Office staff dealing with motoring and similar offences submit their recommendations to the Home Secretary. In my day, they did that through a junior Minister.

Mr. John Patten: Could advisory committees be wrong? If so, then what?

Mr. Rees: I am afraid that most things may well be wrong, but we are trying to make improvements. We do not have it absolutely right.
The Court of Appeal was set up in 1907 because it was felt that the decisions of some courts were not correct. That was 81 years ago, not a thousand years ago. Even so, the judiciary felt that all was lost because the Court of Appeal was set up. It is possible to reconsider. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has made recommendations and my right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled an amendment to the new clause, which I do not pretend is correctly drafted.
I support the proposal because I have operated the system and it needs improvement. We should take note when people of the eminence of Lord Devlin suggest that the procedures of the Court of Appeal, without a jury,


need to be examined. It may well be that the Home Secretary should set up an interdepartmental committee anyway to look at the workings of the Court of Appeal. That is a thought.
I support the new clause because of a case in which I was deeply involved and which worried me, and because I am concerned about the Guildford bombing case, like another former Home Secretary, a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and two former Law Lords. I cannot rest on the argument, "I am deeply concerned; therefore, if I were Home Secretary, I would do something about it in a particular way, with the benefit of other advice." I simply say that I am very concerned.
When I visited one of the women—Carol Richardson—in Styal prison, I was even more deeply concerned that there had been an error of judgment. I have not become involved in the Birmingham case—although I have read the book written by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—because I do not know too much about it and I do not believe that it is my duty to jump in and say that I support that case as much as I support the other case.
I support the rule of law. I ended detention in Northern Ireland because I thought that the system was wrong. One should not lock up people, as I did, by a sort of ukase. It is much better to go before a court. I understand the problem of there being no jury. I believe that there cannot be a jury system in Northern Ireland. I support the rule of law and the courts, but that does not stop me believing that courts can be wrong. It does not weaken the judiciary to argue in that way. I believe that Ministers can be wrong. I have never been a judge, but I have been a Minister. The Court of Appeal needs change, and we suggest one way in which the system can be improved.
10.45 pm
The Home Secretary takes advice from a very good source—C4, if it is still called that—in the criminal department. Good and sound people come forward with a large number of minor cases and the occasional important case. We suggest that, while maintaining that system, and keeping the Home Secretary's powers, we should provide 12 additional persons to look into cases and advise the Home Secretary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) talked about the number of cases. I can remember a case in which we did not take the advice that came forward. The details do not matter but it was a case of murder in Peterborough. The evidence put forward was that something had been wrong with the station clock. Shirley Summerskill, who was the junior Minister, disagreed with the officials. I read the papers. As my predisposition is to support junior Ministers whenever possible—they do not have the best of lives—I agreed with her, and the man got off. That was one instance in which we disagreed with the officials. The officials collect the information and make recommendations according to the case law that builds up; we recommend that additional advice should also be available.
Let us consider what the Home Secretary can do. One case that has worried me, because it was obviously very wrong, is the case of Cooper and MacMahon. In June 1980 I wrote to the then Home Secretary, now Lord Whitelaw, asking him to help me by reminding me what courses of action were open to the Home Secretary. I also reminded him of what happened when I was Home

Secretary, but that is another matter—[Interruption.] He may not have had access to the precise papers but he had access to the same papers; and there is a subtle difference between the two.
The then Home Secretary, in his letter to me, said:
On the first point … there are three things. A Home Secretary can refer a case to the Court of Appeal under section 17. The main purpose of this is to consider new evidence.
I did not find that provision in the Act, but that is what he said, and it is certainly what I have been advised. The letter continued:
Second, a Home Secretary can exercise the Royal Prerogative of Mercy so as to grant a Free Pardon or remit the sentence.

Ms. Short: The question of new evidence and the fact that the amendment would not require it are very important. In some cases everyone is convinced that there has been a dreadful miscarriage of justice and they hunt around for new evidence to bring the case legitimately within the system. We must open up the system to enable cases in which large numbers of people are convinced that there has been a miscarriage of justice to be re-examined without the need to find new evidence to get the case reopened.

Mr. Rees: I referred to that a moment ago. That is the usage that has built up, and it is one aspect that ought to be considered, even if it is not mentioned in the procedure in the new clause.
Lord Whitelaw continued:
Finally, if the person is serving a life sentence, as is the case here" —
Cooper and MacMahon—
the Home Secretary may be able to release him.
What follows is important:
There are statutory limitations on this power to release lifers: the Home Secretary can order a release only if he is recommended to do so by the Parole Board and after consulting the Lord Chief Justice and, if he is available, the trial judge.
My successor reminded me of those three aspects of the Home Secretary's powers.
We are not setting up a new tier: it will still be the Home Secretary taking advice. In the Guildford bombers case, on which the Home Secretary held a police inquiry, he went outside the system to have the matter examined. In a way, our amendment would institutionalise such a procedure.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I understand precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and he speaks with great authority and knowledge, but at the end of the day, it is a recommendation to the Home Secretary, is it not? The Home Secretary still has to decide. The buck stops with him. Let us suppose that he disagrees with the conclusions of that august body. Inevitably, it would be leaked, and he would have to explain to the House why the press were reporting that the review body had arrived at one conclusion and he had decided to overrule it. Would that really assist the Home Secretary in his quasi-appellate role?

Mr. Rees: I remember things like that happening almost every day of the week. The Home Secretary is almost a whipping boy for many of the things that happen. But the Home Secretary must make the decision, and it is not discussed in Cabinet. I would like more evidence to come forward. That might make it easier to reach a decision.
I kept all the papers relating to that case in a file because I was worried about the case of David Cooper and Michael McMahon, in which I played a part. I also kept the written answer given by the former Home Secretary. The case related to the murder of a sub-postmaster in Luton. The second paragraph states:
Since then the case has come before the Court of Appeal on no fewer than five occasions, four of them as a result of a reference by the Home Secretary of the day. The outcome is that the court has quashed the conviction of Mr. Murphy after hearing fresh alibi evidence on his behalf, but has not disturbed the convictions of Mr. Cooper and Mr. McMahon.
I played a part in that.
The former Home Secretary went on to say that he did not question the decisions of his predecessors, who
acted with scrupulous regard to the constitutional conventions
and all the rest of it. He then said:
I have accordingly decided to recommend Her Majesty to remit the remainder of their sentences."—[Official Report, 18 July 1980; Vol. 988, c. 719–20.]
The real reason for that was that the case had gone on and on. Nothing had changed, and no more evidence had been provided. Time was the factor. They had been inside for so long that the royal prerogative was being used. It was not done earlier. I did not make the correct decision, but my successor did. He did it not on fresh evidence but because so much time had passed. He thought that they had been locked up for too long.

Ms. Short: Especially as they were not guilty.

Mr. Rees: The point is that I realised that we needed a change in the law. The Home Secretary at the time provided me with a paper entitled, "Action taken with regard to the cases while Mr. Merlyn Rees was Home Secretary." I have three or four pages on that, so I must have spent a long time on the case. But I was wrong. My predecessor used the royal prerogative not because of new evidence but because those men had been locked up for so long.

Ms. Short: The case was referred to the Court of Appeal four times. My right hon. Friend was not wrong. Nor were the other people who referred the matter to the Court of Appeal, each of whom was convinced that those men were wrongly convicted. The system was wrong and was incapable of releasing them. In the end, the only way to do justice to them was for the Home Secretary to pardon them. My right hon. Friend was not wrong. Our legal system was incapable of providing justice. That is why we are trying to change it tonight.

Mr. Rees: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's help, but I believe that I was wrong and that I should have found a way of dealing with the case earlier. That is why I support the new clause. The Government could take it away and refine it, but its main aim is to provide more evidence.
The third reason, and my final point, is that I am concerned about the Guildford bombers. I am the last person to want to let people out of gaol who have been involved in bombing and killing. We all know what happened yesterday. It is certainly not in that context that I want to deal with this point, but the more I look at it —I am involved with eminent people—the more I see that

something is wrong. The Home Secretary has commissioned an inquiry by the Somerset and Avon police. I trust that I am in order in mentioning this as it is part of the procedures that we are trying to improve. I presume that the deputy chief constable will soon be reporting to the Home Secretary. What does that mean? What will happen then? I shall not say tonight what I think should happen, because the Home Secretary will soon have the report.
There should be a change. Our procedures do not work properly. There should be an interdepartmental committee to consider the 1907 and 1968 legislation about the workings of the Court of Appeal. In the meantime, I want to aid the Home Secretary, in the way that has been suggested, to consider the material and to aid the work of C4 in the Home Office. This issue concerns only a small number of cases. The steps that I took in the case of the murder of the sub-postmaster in Luton were taken in good faith, but I was proved to be wrong because the men were released. They should have been released earlier. The time factor should not be allowed to be an important element in the decision.

Mr. John Patten: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the Guildford and Woolwich bombings, I can tell him that we have the report from the Avon and Somerset police. It is before the Home Secretary at present, and my right hon. Friend hopes to take a decision whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.

Ms. Short: When?

Mr. Patten: As soon as possible.

Mr. Rees: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention.
The suggestion in the new clause should be considered to improve the procedures. I have discussed this matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). I believe that the functioning of the Court of Appeal since its introduction in 1907 needs to be reconsidered.
In response to the hon. Member for Orpington, I should say that that would in no way weaken the rule of law. If the rule of law has been weakened, it was weakened in 1907 when the Court of Appeal was set up. Appeal is necessary within our system because serious mistakes are made, and it is the duty of this House to correct them.

Mr. Hind: I oppose the new clause, but I do not disagree with the basic idea behind it. We are considering a situation in which the Court of Appeal reviews the proceedings at the trial court and looks for material irregularities. It does not look to decide whether a man is guilty or innocent. It looks to see whether the proceedings were carried out properly, and if there was a material irregularity that could have affected the jury's mind it will act to deal with the matter, either by quashing the conviction or by ordering a retrial. That is what lies at the root of the new clause, not the problem of dealing with the small number of cases currently being considered by C4.

Mr. Lawrence: How does my hon. Friend explain away the concept of the lurking doubt, which has little to do with material irregularity, and everything to do with whether justice is being done?

Mr. Hind: My hon. and learned Friend's question supports what I am saying, which is that the court looks purely and simply for material irregularities. One of my


colleagues who, like me, has appeared in the Court of Appeal said that it was like being mugged. He said, "Two of the judges hold you down and the other one goes through your pockets." That just about sums it up in many respects.
11 pm
I oppose the new clause because I do not think that it is sufficiently fundamental. It raises a number of major constitutional considerations. There is a definite split between the Executive and the judicial functions. The judiciary is there to give the man in the street protection against the Executive. It is the one place where the Executive is held to account. That is important in our deliberations. We must be very careful about crossing Executive functions with judicial functions. That is where the proposal goes wrong.
The investigation that is proposed should be carried out at an earlier stage than is suggested in the new clause. It should be carried out immediately after the trial, when many of the trails are hot, to try to find new evidence and matters that are likely to persuade a court that the conviction was wrong and should be revoked. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) will agree with me on this, as I have dealt with similar matters before. The problem is that the case is often considered years later, when the evidence has disappeared, and it is difficult to follow things through. C4 considers the cases on instinct, feel and experience, not on the evidence. That is very important.
The independent review body proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), for the highest of motives, must consider the problems from the court's point of view.

Ms. Short: What about the wrongly convicted?

Mr. Hind: I accept the hon. Lady's point. The problems must be considered from the point of view of the defendant and the victim. However, we must still consider admissible evidence. Are we to reach the position where we begin to consider anecdotal evidence, inadmissible evidence and matters that would not have been considered by the court?

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hind: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to finish, I shall give way to him.
We must consider those factors. An independent body should not recommend to the Home Secretary that a man should go free, or receive a free pardon, or be given a remission, on evidence that would not have stood up in court to begin with and would not have been admissible, and which, if the case were referred back to the Court of Appeal, would still not be admissible. It is important to consider those facts,

Mr. Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. Hind: Many hon. Members want to speak, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will catch the eye of the Chair later. I shall give way once I have finished this point.
Having looked at the question of admissible evidence, we must also consider who will decide whether the defendant or appellant is to be set free. I do not believe that the Home Secretary should be placed in that position. The matter should be decided in an appellate court. I

listened to the interpretation of the new clause by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough will confirm that under his proposal, following the review by the independent body, the case will have to be referred to a court for consideration. There will still be a judicial function to be carried out. The proper place for deciding whether a case should be dealt with by way of a free pardon, or whatever, is in a court, before proper judges, with all the evidence being considered.

Mr. Carlile: I return to the hon. Gentleman's previous point. He seems to be obsessed with the admissibility of evidence. The strict rules of admissibility in both criminal and civil law have been devised so that juries are kept within very tight rules and do not hear evidence that might mislead them. Why should we be so hidebound by strict rules of admissibility in courts in which there are no juries? Why should the Court of Appeal not consider hearsay evidence, and even secondhand hearsay evidence? That court surely has the ability to sift what is relevant from what is irrelevant, rather than sift what falls within the rules from what falls outwith the rules.

Mr. Hind: I disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, because, following his view, every summary trial held in a magistrates court would cause the rules to be changed. Magistrates would then be permitted to listen to hearsay, and secondhand hearsay evidence, because they would have the same function and be in a position to perform the mental gymnastics of ignoring secondhand hearsay evidence and drawing out what is relevant. My strong feeling is that evidence before an appellate court should be that which is admissible before a jury and a trial judge.
The third point of importance is the review body's status. One of my hon. Friends made a point about the views of the independent body. Assuming that the whole matter must be referred to an appellate court, as it is now on many occasions, where will the independent body fit in? What will be its status, and how is the court to view its recommendations? Will the court see them? All those factors must be considered, as must the question of how the independent body reaches its conclusions in advising the Home Secretary.
According to the new clause, the people involved will not be qualified lawyers, and they will not consider matters from the point of view of a trial in a lower court in the way that Court of Appeal judges do. Most important of all, who will undertake the investigation? C4 has the police —professional investigators—to assist in its examinations. There is no comparable provision in the new clause.

Mr. Stanbrook: Subsection (6) of the proposed new clause provides for the review body to hold its own trial, and it will be entitled to
make a recommendation to the Secretary of State after either

(a) an informal inquiry or
(b) a full hearing with legal representation on both sides."
The review body may hold its own trial before making any recommendation. How can that trial be in private

Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend rightly makes the point that there may be an informal inquiry without the discipline of the court, and without considering the rules of evidence.


Therefore, a view may be formed that might not be acceptable to the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords, or a judicial body.
I concede—as do many of my hon. Friends with whom this proposed clause does not find favour—that this problem needs to be examined more closely. The new clause is only a sticking-plaster mechanism, covering only part of the problem, and does not tackle the fundamentals, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South.
The real problem occurs earlier on, and that is when the investigation should he carried out. It should not be undertaken by an independent body that is not a legal tribunal—a body that will establish a third tier. The Home Secretary's function is to consider whether there is evidence for a court to reconsider a finding, and it is only in exceptional cases that he intervenes and recommends a free pardon, for example. We must not overstep the powers of the appellate judicial system that we have established. It must be allowed to function. If there is a need for review, let us examine that system and improve it. We should not introduce a sticking-plaster method to deal with the problem.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) on moving the new clause. It is a pleasure to be associated with him, he being a consistent champion of justice.
The clause should be of interest to all those who are concerned with the reputation of the British judicial system, whether they are Left-wing, Right-wing, Unionist or Nationalist, for it is about justice. I take heart from the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House and of all shades of opinion have felt able to support the clause. They have done so because they are aware of the grave shadow that is falling over the reputation of the British judicial system as a result of a number of celebrated alleged miscarriages of justice.
One of the beauties of the new clause is that it is modelled almost precisely on the recommendation of a Select Committee that examined the problem in a good deal of detail. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, its proposals have been endorsed by a number of individuals who could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as wild-eyed revolutionaries.
The Select Committee's recommendation arose over a number of years from the difficulty of persuading the Home Office and senior judges to own up to mistakes in a certain number of extremely serious cases, some of which are well known. It is not a problem that originated recently. It has long historical origins, the best known one being the case of Timothy Evans, who was convicted and hanged in 1950. The person who had committed the offence was caught in 1953. It was realised at once that the real offender had been caught, but it took 13 years and a public campaign and two judicial reviews of the sort that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) says cannot be set up, before Timothy Evans was posthumously pardoned. We do not want to have to go through that time and time again.
The case of Cooper and McMahon has been referred to the Court of Appeal on five occasions, which is a record. On four occasions the references were initiated by Home

Secretaries, and on one occasion the normal right of appeal was exercised. It took a decade before a Home Secretary decided that the prison gates should be opened and that the men should each be issued with a railway ticket and sent home. He could not think of any way of persuading the Court of Appeal to admit a mistake. I might add that the men received no apology for the decade that they had spent in gaol.
The problem has been exacerbated in recent years by what are destined to become causes celebres, cases which are already bringing the British judical system into disrepute throughout the world. There are the six innocent people who were convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings and the 11 innocent people who were convicted of the Guildford and Woolwich bombings.
Everyone who has studied the problem has concluded that some form of independent review tribunal is needed to act as a longstop and to cut the knot. In 1968, the well-respected organisation Justice prepared a report on difficulties in persuading the courts to own up to mistakes. It was prompted perhaps by the difficulties in obtaining a pardon for Timothy Evans. It recommended 20 years ago that an independent review body be set up. In 1976, the distinguished judge Lord Devlin, in a report on evidence of indentification in criminal cases, concluded:
An independent review tribunal with rules of evidence and procedure different from those of ordinary courts
is what is necessary.
11.15 pm
In 1982, the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded in paragraph 11 of its report:
All our witnesses, apart from the Home Office, felt that some opportunity for independent review would both add to the quality of the advice given to the Home Office and at the same time help to persuade petitioners and the public that each case had been given full and fair consideration.
Those are the words of a Select Committee on which there was a Conservative majority. That view was put to it by the Criminal Bar Association and, as has already been mentioned, by the distinguished solicitor Sir David Napley. Sir David went further. He said that he was
unable from his experience to recall a single case where the Home Office has, as a result of its own investigation, felt able to recommend a pardon.
I can speak from my own experience, in the case of the Birmingham pub bombings, of the Home Office department responsible for dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice. The officials there are assiduous, courteous and well-meaning, but see their role as exclusively that of poking holes in evidence presented by persistent journalists, Members of Parliament or other public figures. There are few signs that they lift the telephone very often to do any independent investigation, and still fewer signs that they get out and do some digging.
The Select Committee report referred to a number of other problems, one being the lengthy, unexplained delays that took place while the Home Secretary was considering at the outset whether to refer to the Court of Appeal. It also made the point—extremely relevant in the light of recent experience—that the burden of truth, once a case had been referred to the Court of Appeal, was not the burden of truth that we are used to: the defendants had to prove their innocence, which is far more difficult than the reverse procedure.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mullin: Certainly.

Ms. Short: He is not the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It is interesting that we are not supposed to call someone on the Opposition Benches an hon. Friend. We have reviewed the case of the Birmingham pub bombings together more than once, and I, as deputy leader of the West Midlands county council, was in the Birmingham pubs where the carnage had taken place within the hour. Despite that, I too signed the petition that the sentences should be reviewed.
The Court of Appeal sat for longer than at any time in its history, and still said that the verdict was sound. How long is justice or injustice to be? How long do people have to sit to say that a verdict is sound? Having supported the review of that case, I believe that the Court of Appeal was right in saying that the verdict was sound.

Mr. Mullin: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to agree with him, because I am concerned primarily with whether the convicted people did it or not. I shall come in a moment to what I regard as deficiencies in the way in which the Court of Appeal dealt with the case. Unlike the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark)—who, having made his point, is no longer even listening to my response—I sat through the appeal hearing in the Old Bailey.
We have not yet heard any reference to the Home Office's 1983 reply to the Select Committee report. In paragraph 3, the Home Office says that it will review
both the terms and the frequency of interim replies to petitions in order to prevent long and completely unexplained delays.
That is what it said in seeking to brush aside the Select Committee's report in April 1983.
I refer to the Birmingham case. Doubts about it were first raised in public in October 1985. It took 18 months before we were able to persuade the Home Secretary to refer it to the Court of Appeal. During that time we were given the run-around. It was difficult to obtain information about the delay. The Home Office has not cleaned up its act, as it said it would in April 1983. It was 10 months after that before the case reached the Court of Appeal. More than two years elapsed between the first serious doubts being raised and the case being given another hearing.
The Guildford case has already been referred to this evening. I believe that the Home Secretary reopened that case in August 1987. We are still awaiting the result. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) asked earlier how the review is going. I can offer my right hon. Friend slightly more information than the Minister was able to offer him. It is not going very well. The Avon and Somerset police have made a rather negative report, the details of which we shall never know. I understand that at the moment the Home Secretary is wrestling with what to do about such distinguished figures as my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South who have expressed strong views about the case. The problem is that there never was much evidence against those people, so it is extremely difficult to find new evidence as the basis for reopening the case.
Paragraph 10 of the Home Office reply. in April 1983 said:
The Home Secretary will in future be willing to use his power of reference more readily".

That is a laugh, for a start.
the Lord Chief Justice, who has been consulted, sees room for the court to be more ready to exercise its own powers to receive evidence or … to order a retrial.
Let me consider that in the light of what happened subsequently. The Home Secretary is, understandably, extremely reluctant to refer the Guildford and Woolwich case to the Court of Appeal because of the kicking that the Birmingham case got before that one. Five years ago the Lord Chief Justice is said to have expressed his readiness to take a more generous view of cases referred to him. If he ever gave such a commitment, all I can say is that he has reneged on it.
The first thing that the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues did when the Birmingham case arrived before them was to refuse to order a retrial, and the appeal was dismissed with contempt. Lord Lane went further than that. This will be of interest to the Home Secretary if he is thinking of referring any further cases to the Court of Appeal. Lord Lane said:
As has happened before in references by the Home Secretary to this court … the longer this hearing has, gone on, the more convinced this court has become that the verdict of the jury was correct.
In other words, "Don't bother sending us any more cases. You're wasting your time." That is the dilemma with which the Home Secretary has to wrestle when considering whether to refer back the Guildford and Woolwich case. or perhaps the Carl Bridgewater case—another one that is in his in-tray at the moment—to the Court of Appeal.
As for an independent review tribunal, in April 1983 the Home Office said, "Leave it to the court. It is a matter of constitutional principle." We shall no doubt hear more about that when the Minister replies to the debate.
That was the position six years ago. The position today is a great deal worse. It does not allow for the complacency of the Home Office's response in April 1983 to the Select Committee's report. The need for some way to break the knot and get round these great injustices has never been greater. The Birmingham and the Guildford and Woolwich cases have already been referred to, and I serve notice that there is another case in the pipeline.
Judith Ward was convicted in February 1974 of the M62 coach bombing. I do not, as I do in the other two cases, put my hand on my heart and say that she did not do it, because I have not studied that case in the detail that I have studied other cases, but a number of people whose judgment I respect have looked in detail into that case. They say that the persons who carried out the M62 coach bombing are alive and well and walking the streets of the Republic and that Judith Ward had nothing whatever to do with it.
By way of a clue as to the possible future of that case, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the principal Crown witness in the case against Judith Ward was our old friend the forensic scientist Dr. Frank Skuse, who has since had to retire at the grand old age of 51 for what the Home Office coyly describes as "limited effectiveness"——

Mr. John Patten: Limited efficiency.

Mr. Mullin: It varies according to which brief one reads.
The Carl Bridgewater case is still awaiting tie Home Secretary's decision. It is not political, in the sense that it involves the wicked murder of a newspaper boy. There are


considerable grounds for disquiet, but nobody seriously believes that if that case were referred to the Court of Appeal they would get anything but a kick in the teeth.
The hon. Member for Selly Oak, who did not stay long enough to hear my reply to his question, asked about the Court of Appeal hearing of the Birmingham case. It was one of the great cases. It lasted more than 25 days; it was certainly the longest Court of Appeal hearing. It has been conceded that it had before it the greatest amount of evidence that has ever been put before an appeal hearing. A large number of issues of fact had to be determined. Issues of fact are supposed to be dealt with by juries.

Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mullin: I shall give way, but I want to get on.

Mr. Devlin: I am most anxious for the hon. Gentleman to get on. Conservative Members are most interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about the various cases. I am following him very closely to hear what he is saying about the cases outstanding. Will he direct my attention specifically to how the new clause will help the situation? That is what I am most interested to hear.

Mr. Mullin: The independent review tribunal would have not merely to consider the evidence put to the court and form a judgment about the new facts that had been put to the court, but to consider evidence that is inadmissible before the Court of Appeal. That point has been made before; the hon. Gentleman was here and he heard it. I shall come in a moment to that point in relation to the Birmingham case.
The Birmingham people were convicted on the basis of confessions which were signed by four of them in police custody and which they allege were beaten out of them with considerable violence. Three former policemen said before the Court of Appeal that that was so. One of the policemen involved in obtaining those confessions—not one of the three who were before the court—has since been to gaol for beating up suspects with a view to extracting confessions. Incidentally, another has just received the Queen's medal. He will have to send it back, as has happened with Lester Piggott's MBE.
A cleaner from the cells at Morecambe, where the men were held during the first day of their interrogation, said that he found blood in the cells shortly after they were vacated. Two prison officers said that, when they saw the men undressed, they had sustained injuries on their bodies
consistent with a systematic beating below the neck while in police custody".
Two solicitors, who were the first civilians to see the men after they emerged from police custody when the confessions had been obtained, said that four of their clients attempted to draw attention to their injuries.
All that was before the Court of Appeal which found different reasons for denouncing every single witness—one was a liar, one was mistaken—and dismissed them contemptuously.
The forensic evidence which was before the court was the other major plank in the case against those six unfortunate men. At the original trial, the forensic evidence was the key. It was also the key to the confessions because it convinced the police that they had the right men and caused them to set about obtaining the confessions in the way that they did. At the original trial Dr. Skuse was

elevated to sainthood by the presiding judge, Lord Bridge. That could not happen at the appeal because it had emerged—and it took something to find out exactly the circumstances—that Dr. Skuse had been dismissed by the Home Office for "limited effectiveness". He was a disastrous witness. He had made no notes, he had the wrong formulas, he repeatedly contradicted himself and was contradicted by his superiors. Yet the judge, who did not adopt a generous attitude to other witnesses, set his evidence aside.
11.30 pm
They brought out a woman forensic scientist whose evidence at the original trial was thought so insignificant as not to be worthy of her being allowed to give evidence at all. They elevated her, too, to the status of sainthood that had been accorded to Dr. Skuse previously.
There was also circumstantial evidence that the men had been in the wrong place at the wrong time and had known a number of wrong people. At the original trial Lord Bridge said that the circumstantial evidence did not matter, to the extent that if that was all the evidence there was against the men, they could not be convicted. It was secondary to the two main planks of the confessions and the forensic evidence.
At the Appeal Court hearing, with the spectacular gymnastics for which Appeal Court judges are famed, the circumstantial evidence suddenly became the dominant issue, and the judges spent some two and a half hours of the judgment on it.
For me, sitting as I did for the best part of 25 days watching clever lawyers arguing about sophisticated chemical formulae, the whole thing was irrelevant because I had traced the people who had committed the crime. All four are alive and well and walking the streets of the Republic.
Some time I should be happy to debate the problem of the men's identity. The identity of three of the four men is known to the authorities. I do not suggest that the Minister knows it but I have good reason for saying that the west midlands police have known it since 1975. Once four of the wrong men have confessed, it is very embarrassing to come up with any more.

Mr. Archer: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the disturbing aspects of the subject is that, for every innocent person who is in prison, there is a guilty person walking the streets?

Mr. Mullin: Those who are interested in deterrence will be interested to know that one of the four men who carried out the Birmingham pub bombings went on to commit another murder. There is much to be said for catching the right people when dealing with terrorism.
The evidence that I, as an impoverished freelance journalist, tracked down at that time was inadmissible, and the Court of Appeal could not refer to it. The lawyers all had on their tables copies of the book in which I set out the details, and I commend it to anyone who is interested. The book was the big unspoken issue. Instead of taking it into account, however, we sat arguing about the minutiae of forensic evidence—and all the time I was walking round, happy to be put to the test.
As yet, I have not been pressed too hard about this. I said that the people who did the crime got away, that I had met all four of them, and that two of them had given me a detailed account of what happened. If it is possible for an


impoverished freelance journalist to do that, it must have been within the wit of the west midlands police to do likewise.
Many people know that the wrong people are being held. In the gaols where these men are being held, it is taken as read by governors and other prisoners that they are the wrong ones. I visited two of them two years ago when I embarked on the case. I ran into an assistant governor coming out of the prison. He said, "Between you and me, we have got the wrong people. It is awful; everyone here believes that."
John Walker, in Long Lartin prison, who was described at the trial as a brigadier in the IRA and the brains behind the wicked murders of 21 people, receives open visits, the same as all the other prisoners. A genuine IRA man serving a 14-year term for a terrorist offence in which no one was killed or injured— the man I visited in this category was within two months of release—gets the full IRA treatment: a separate cubicle with two prison officers seated outside. Yet in the same gaol, on the same day, a man who is supposed to have committed 21 murders is allowed open visits—as are all of the Birmingham six.
Open visits are authorised not by the governor of the prison but by the Home Office. It knows that those people are not members of the IRA, but no one can think of a way of persuading the judges to own up. Those unfortunate men have languished in prison for 14 years.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has said, and, I believe, published a claim, that he has information that could lead to the identification of, the hon. Gentleman says, the right people. Why has he withheld that information? Does he not know that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 the withholding of such information is an offence? Should he not divulge to the police everything that he knows?

Mr. Mullin: I not only claimed and published it but said it five minutes ago; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening. The hon. Gentleman's friends in the police force have not been all that keen to know.
When I first established contact with the people who did it, I was asked, "What will you do if the west midlands police ask you who they are?" I attempted to put the matter before the Home Office. I sent the last two chapters of my book to the Home Secretary two months before they were published. The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr)—I am sure that he will recall this and back me up arranged a meeting for me—at that time I was not a Member of Parliament—with a Home Office Minister. A couple of days before we were due to go along, the hon. Member for Harborough received a telephone call and was told. "Do not bring Mr. Mullin with you; come alone." The Home Office was not keen to discover the truth.
My hon. Friends arranged an Adjournment debate in the darkest hours on the subject—by which time my allegations had been published and I had appeared on television—and I sat in the box in the corner of the Chamber. After the debate, the Minister said to me, I think that you had better come and see me." I went to see the Minister and I was interviewed by two civil servants. They asked whether I would be prepared to be interviewed by an assistant chief constable of the west midlands police. That assistant chief constable was ordered to see me; he did not rush down and say, "Goodness, somebody knows about the Birmingham pub bombings." I was deeply

impressed by the state of his knowledge, which clearly came from the archives of the west midlands police headquarters at Lloyd house.
There are police officers who know what happened in this case. Things are starting to turn up in plain brown envelopes. Sooner or later they may become embarrassing, because documents from the headquarters of the west midlands police have already turned up. I promise that when the time comes that will prove a mite embarrassing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I have answered the question. I am happy to have a debate about it.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he has information that would lead to the apprehension of the people whom he believes to be the perpetrators of the Birmingham bombing? Is he withholding that information? Does he know that it is a criminal offence to do so? Will he answer the question whether he is withholding information from the police?

Mr. Mullin: I am not withholding it; I have been announcing it to the world for the past 18 months. I have made myself available to Home Office civil servants and Mr. Meffen, who is assistant chief constable of the west midlands police. Anybody would want to test, first, whether I have made it all up and, secondly, whether I have been had.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Give the names.

Mr. Mullin: I shall give the hon. Gentleman the reference number of a document in the special branch archives that contains the name of the person who put the bomb in the pub. In due course, his curiosity will be satisfied.
Perhaps I should explain that I am motivated by the fact that six innocent people have spent 13 years in prison for something they did not do. I did not set out—it was not my job—to find the people who put the bombs in the pubs in Birmingham, wicked though that action was. That is a job for the west midlands police, who have never shown the slightest interest, even though all four of the people who did it passed through the custody of the west midlands police after the bombings.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) asks whether I have information that might lead to their apprehension. Of course not—because they all got away—but they all passed through through the hands of the west midlands police after the pub bombings. They were not apprehended because nobody was looking for them, since four people had already confessed.

Ms. Short: Is it not significant that, when we are discussing the enormously important issue of people being wrongfully locked up for many years and about our criminal justice system malfunctioning, all we get from those who oppose us on these matters is a sort of game? Instead of listening to my hon. Friend's explanation. they try to divert the argument. We are talking about the credibility of our criminal justice system, and they are playing games. That brings this House and our criminal justice system into even further disrepute compared with the failure adequately to deal with these matters

Mr. Mullin: Yes, but I take comfort from the fact that many hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches—some of whom have put their names to the new clause —do care. I appreciate also that there are some who under


no circumstances are upset even by the possibility of innocent people going to the gallows. I am heartened, however, in that many hon. Members who do not share my views on many issues do care, and I am addressing my remarks to them tonight. I cannot help the others. They face a dilemma with which they will have to wrestle.
I come to the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings, which in a way is a more scandalous case because, in my view, the authorities have known from the beginning—probably from three days afterwards, but certainly from six months after the arrest of four innocent people—that they had the wrong people. There has never been any serious evidence against those people. There are the confessions of one man, Paul Hill. Those confessions had to be rewritten six or seven times in police custody to accord with each set of facts as they became available. Those half dozen or seven confessions formed the basis of the conviction, not merely of the four people who were done for the Guildford and Woolwich murders, but also of the conviction of the seven other people—Mrs. Maguire and her family, a totally innocent family—who were convicted in connection with making those bombs.
They also, incidentally, formed the basis of the arrest of 31 people, many of whom had to be released because no serious evidence could be found against them and because they were able to produce cast-iron alibis. It was pot luck. They just hung on to the seven who could not come up with cast-iron alibis. As I say, this is more outrageous because the authorities knew from the beginning of this case, whereas in the Birmingham case it only gradually dawned on them that something was seriously wrong.
I will mention a conversation I had with Gerard Conlan. He did not offer this to me as something I should bring to the House and shout about. It was an anecdote he told about something that happened to him after he had been in custody for three days and after he had signed his confession and was signing everything they put in front of him. He said, "The police said to me, 'Now Gerry, we are going to take you for a drive round Guildford so you can show us where you went to plant the bombs.' He told me he was desperate to co-operate with them, that he would do anything after spending three days and nights with the officers. As I say, he was signing anything they put in front of him.
The problem was that he had never before set foot in Guildford in his life. They put him in the back of a police car and started driving through Guildford. He was taking them down one-way streets and cul-de-sacs and they were getting more and more mad, until in the end they said, "We have had enough of this," and they took him back to the police station, slung him in the cells and closed the door.
After perhaps 20 minutes a face—presumably that of a police officer—appeared at the little flap in the cell door and a voice said, "That confession you've given us: a load of fairy tales, isn't it?" "Yes," he replied. "You didn't do it, did you?" asked the voice. "No," he replied. "We know that," said the voice, "but we need bodies. We're going to do you."
That was day three. I do not make much of that because it is an anecdote and Gerard Conlan has never sought to make much of it. But six months later they certainly found out who had done it because by accident they caught the

people who had—the Balcombe street IRA unit, three of four members of which were responsible, along with two other members who got away but who, I believe, were subsequently apprehended in connection with other matters. It is evident from their actions that the authorities knew from the moment they caught those people that they had got the wrong people. The problem was that they had just put away the wrong people. The members of the Balcombe street IRA unit were able to describe in such detail how they had done it that it was not possible to go on pretending any longer that they had not.
11.45 pm
What did the authorities do? They paced up and down and round in circles; they decided to charge the Balcombe street people with everything but the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings. When the Balcombe street people came up in court they all got up and said that as members of the Provisional IRA they would not normally recognise a British court, but because innocent people had been convicted of offences for which they were guilty they proposed to plead not guilty to all the offences.
An enormous amount of fraud and perjury had to be committed. At one stage a forensic scientist in the witness box had a chart. The chart showed how all the different bombs were connected with each other; they all had the same Ever-Ready batteries and used the same Smith's alarm system, the same timing devices and all the rest of it. It was put to the Crown forensic scientist, "You appear to have missed out the Guildford bomb. Would you not say that it was made the same way?" He said, "Yes." "You appear to have missed out the Woolwich bomb. Would you not say that that was made the same way?" He said, "Yes." He was asked why he had missed those out of his chart. He said, "Because I was told to by that police officer over there." The police officer was called, and he said, "I was told to tell the forensic scientist to miss them out by that inspector over there." The inspector was called, and he said, "I was told to miss them out by the Director of Public Prosecutions." It goes all the way to the top. They knew they had got the wrong people. That is only one example.
Apart from the fact that there was never any serious evidence against them so that it is difficult to come up with new evidence, a big problem in the case of the Guildford and Woolwich people was that the judge was Lord Donaldson, now Master of the Rolls, one of the most senior judges; the prosecutor was Sir Michael Havers, subsequently Lord Chancellor; and one of the chief policemen involved was Commander Imbert, recently knighted, and now Metropolitan Commissioner. That is the set of reputations involved. Conservative Members have told me this. I am not making it up out of Left-wing paranoia. I hear all the time that it is very difficult, given the reputations involved, to persuade those in authority to face up to a problem of this magnitude.
One big problem with the Appeal Court is that many judges, though not all of them of course, are preoccupied with the credibility of the judicial system rather than with justice. I should like to give one small illustration. Lord Denning, a very distinguished judge, can always be counted upon to say out loud what others say only in their drawing rooms and in the comfort of their clubs.
When the Birmingham case came before Lord Denning in 1980, as it did briefly when the men were suing the west


midlands police in an attempt to get an admission of how the injuries—which no one denies—had been inflicted upon them, Lord Denning said:
If the six men win, it will mean that the police were guilty of perjury, that they were guilty of violence and threats,"—
he understood what it was all about—
that the confessions were involuntary and were improperly admitted in evidence and that the convictions were erroneous. That would mean that the Home Secretary would either have to recommend they be pardoned or he would have to remit the case to the Court of Appeal. This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say: It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.
He said that the appeal must be dismissed, and dismiss it he did.
However. Lord Denning has been of value to us in this case. It is relevant to the new clause we are discussing because it is a summary of the problem. On the programme "Did you see?" on BBC2 in February of this year he was asked point blank, was it better that one or two innocent people should remain in gaol rather than undermine the credibility of the legal system'? He said, "Certainly." He went on to elaborate that point of view, that the credibility of the system was the priority, that of course it was regrettable but occasionally innocent people would have to suffer.
On the night of the Birmingham judgment, 28 January this year, I had the privilege of sharing a car with Lord Denning between two television studios. It was a journey of about 20 minutes. At each end Lord Denning expressed his absolute confidence in the outcome of the appeal. In the car it was a teeny bit different. He said, "I don't know why they have invited me tonight. I don't know anything about this case." After he had said it two or three times, I gingerly said, "Well, I know the people who did it. They are all alive and well in Ireland." Lord Denning went quiet for a moment and then said, "Oh, that is very anxious." I said, "I thought that that was fairly anxious, too." He said, "I suppose that you know more about this case than anybody else." I said that that was possible. He said, "More than the Appeal Court judges?" I said, "That is possible." He said. "If I were you, I would write a book about it." The book was in its fourth editon at that time and had been one reason why the case had been referred to the Court of Appeal. When the arrived at the BBC studios, Lord Denning's confidence had returned, the red light came on and he even managed a little indignation the second time round.
It is a tragedy that the scale of the mistake is so great that we lack the courage to own up. It is not my intention to rub anyone's face in the case; I just want these six innocent people released. Many people understand that something had gone seriously wrong. Conservative Members understand that—I know, because sometimes they come up privately to shake my hand. A few days after the judgment a Conservative Member said to me, "Chris, you have had an excellent run. Now drop it. You are starting to question the system." He quoted in Latin the phrase—I do not have the appropriate education, but it was obviously something that a judge said in an aberrant moment in years gone by: "Let justice be done even though the heavens shall fall." The hon. Gentleman said, "I do not believe in that. I believe in keeping the heavens in their place. Lay off, Chris. You have had a good run."
Other Conservative Members have said, "Look, Chris, you do not wish to be known as the MP for the Birmingham bombers." I want to be known as someone

who cares about justice and allows that care about justice to override practical considerations. I know that that view is shared by many hon. Members on both sides of the House—[Interruption.] For every one who shouts, "Rubbish," there are others who care. Some have come to me. The hon. Member for Harborough has never hesitated, and not because of anything that I have done. He came to his conclusion independently of me and has pursued it remorselessly ever since. I congratulate him and am pleased to stand with him.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take what I am about to ask him in a constructive spirit. I have been rather shocked to hear him telling us in the past few minutes of a private and confidential conversation in a taxi with an extremely elderly gentleman, a former Master of the Rolls. We have heard only one side of the conversation. I should like to hear the other side. Having broken that confidence—I have a great deal of sympathy for the new clause—will the hon. Gentleman break another confidence and help people like me, who have doubts about this issue, by telling us who are the Birmingham bombers?

Mr. Mullin: I am happy to address that question in the appropriate forum——

Mr. Carlile: Now.

Mr. Mullin: I have been cross-examined on that issue by an assistant chief constable and a senior civil servant. The hon. and learned Gentleman may feel disturbed at the breaking of a confidence, but Lord Denning did not say, "You cannot talk about it."

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Gentleman is not giving names because he wants to make money out of it.

Mr. Mullin: The Minister has the nerve to say that I am making money out of it. it has caused me a great deal of inconvenience. That remark disappoints me, coming as it does from the Minister, who is one of the people who will have to deal with the case. Hon. Members should look at the Minister's demeanour and ask themselves whether he is an appropriate person to deal with the matter with the impartiality that his office requires. One expects such abuse from wild men from the backwoods; one does not expect it from a Minister.

Hon. Members: Tell us who they are.

Dr. John Reid: I do not share the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) in these matters. Does he agree that had the Minister shown half as much energy and, indeed, venom, in pursuing the truth of the matter, as he showed to my hon. Friend just now, we might have got to the bottom of it some considerable time ago?
I shall not prejudge my hon. Friend's reasons for not naming names; it may be for the sake of his own safety or for other reasons. But suppose that the information that he has given us tonight is correct. Suppose that the west midlands police have knowledge of three of the four people, that four of them passed through their hands at the time of the original investigation and that at least one of them is named in a confidential special branch file in their


possession. The only way for those hon. Members who are shouting for names to test the matter is to demand that the Home Secretary investigate the allegations. If the Government do not investigate the allegations and we ultimately find that my hon. Friend has spoken the truth, this will have been one of the greatest derelictions of duty on the part of any Home Secretary or Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that, I remind him that the debate is going wide of the new clause, which relates to an independent review body. I invite the hon. Gentleman to relate his remarks to the new clause.

Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that advice. I was intending to finish by addressing myself specifically to the new clause. I am sure that you, Sir, and the whole House will appreciate the relevance of the two cases into which I have gone in some detail. They are the greatest contemporary alleged miscarriages of justice and therefore are the obvious first candidates for review by an independent review tribunal. They provided much of the impetus for new clause 2.
The Minister will reply shortly. I am not trying to be contentious, but I appeal to him not to give us a rehash of the Home Office reply to the Select Committee in 1983. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then; much has gone wrong and in the light of what has happened, many of the points made then do not stand up to analysis, as I have tried to show. I hope that the Minister will at least attempt to learn some of the lessons. This great tragedy affects not merely the six men and their families, and the 11 innocent people and their families; it casts a shadow over the entire judicial system.
One of the great strengths of the new clause is that it creates a forum for dealing with inadmissible evidence. If the Minister concludes that the new clause is not the appropriate way to do that, I hope that some other way can be found. [Interruption.] The Minister's ventriloquist does not find that a problem, but serious people do. The other problem is that the burden of proof—this was the tenor of the Court of Appeal hearing—is on the defendants to prove that they did not do it, which is far more difficult than proving that they did.
12 midnight
It has come to something when Amnesty International starts to take an interest in cases in EC4 rather than in some of the world's better-known tyrannies. Referring to the Birmingham six appeal, it said:
In Amnesty International's opinion the Court of Appeal consistently refused to give the prisoners the benefit of the doubt on any important point in its judgment. It is striking overall that the court did not specifically deal with the cumulative effect of the testimony supporting the prisoners' allegations. It is also striking that, even though, according to the Court, the prisoners' convictions rested on their statements of admission, the testimony of every fresh witness was dismissed as either being dishonest or mistaken or irrelevant.
Amnesty International also believes that the extent to which the new evidence about the forensic tests casts doubt on their findings is significant in that, if it had been available at the time of the trial, this evidence would have influenced the manner in which allegations of ill-treatment were assessed by judge and jury. In this regard, the evidence at the appeal hearing concerning the scientific tests, while not proving

conclusively that the evidence in the original trial must be rejected totally, adds significantly to the doubt as to its fallibility. This element was not present in the original trial.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal seems to rest on an assessment that the six failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, or to a standard close to that, that they were ill-treated. Under English law it is for the prosecution to prove that confessions allegedly obtained by physical ill-treatment were not so obtained. Amnesty International believes that this has not been proved."
That is the opinion of a very distinguished body to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have paid tribute when it is dealing with cases of human rights in faraway countries. It is a bit more embarrassing when it comes so close to home. I regret to say that Amnesty International sent that conclusion to the Home Secretary and received in return a letter similar to one that it sometimes receives from East German leaders when they criticise court cases there. He said, "The case has been tried according to our procedure. There is nothing that we can do, so get lost."

Mr. John Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the prosecution cannot always prove that there was no ill treatment? If it is alleged, it is difficult to prove that it did not occur. If the new clause was accepted, would it not be open to anyone to claim that he had been ill treated and to ask for the entire prosecution case to be set aside?

Mr. Mullin: The hon. Gentleman is obviously not familiar with the case. No one disputes that those men were injured. They were covered in injuries, as photographs taken at the time prove. The dispute is about whether those injuries were inflicted when they were in police custody—when the confessions were obtained—or when they were in the care of prison warders. The men say that they were beaten up by both sets of people. The police say that they must have been beaten up by the prison warders. The prison warders concede that they beat them up, too, but say that the men were injured when they arrived. That is the nub of the problem.
There are precedents for setting up a review tribunal along the lines suggested in new clause 2. The two judicial inquiries set up into the Timothy Evans case and the Confait case support that argument. If the Minister rejects what is proposed in new clause 2, I hope that he will at least give some alternatives. He is an intelligent and humane man, and I hope that he will not say that everything in the garden is perfect. That is the view of some of his hon. Friends. He must know that not everything in the garden is perfect and that there are some terrible problems.
Everyone who has studied those cases knows that something is wrong and that British justice is being discredited all round the world. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can no longer set foot in the United States without a Congressman mentioning the cases of the Birmingham six or the Guildford four. In the Soviet Union, prompted no doubt by our keen interest in human rights there, the appeal cases have received a great deal of publicity. The Soviet Foreign Minister is now mentioning those and related cases when British Ministers start lecturing him on human rights in the Soviet Union. European Members of Parliament challenged the Prime Minister on the cases when she was addressing them. It is getting out of hand now, and it is spreading.
In Ireland, it is believed, rightly or wrongly, that an Irishman charged with a terrorist offence cannot hope for a fair trial in the United Kingdom. If one asks for the evidence for that, people point to the Birmingham, Guilford and Woolwich cases. Those cases may have been a factor and will certainly affect public opinion on the issue of extradition and the failure of an Irish court the other day to extradite Mr. McVeigh. We would be in a better position to occupy the moral high ground if we could point to the fact that we have a legal system through which we can confidently extradite people in the knowledge that they will have a fair trial.

Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that it would be an appropriate time to test the commitment of the Government of the Irish Republic to human rights by encouraging our own Government to seek to extradite those whom he declares there is evidence to believe were guilty of the Birmingham bombing?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will resist the temptation to go out of order. He must keep to the new clause.

Mr. Mullin: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I shall resist the temptation.
Doubts have been raised in this country by such distinguished persons, not all dangerous extremists, as Cardinal Hume, Lord Devlin, Lord Scarman, Lord Jenkins, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South—a former Home Secretary—the hon. Members for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) and for Harborough and many other distinguished hon. Members who do not share my views on other matters. Those people have studied these cases and know that something is wrong and that something serious needs to be done about them.
The Home Secretary takes a personal interest in those cases. As an intelligent and humane man, he knows that something is wrong. No one can blame him for his reluctance to refer the case to the Court of Appeal in the light of what happened in the Birmingham case. That is why an alternative method of breaking the knot must be found. I hope that, when the Home Secretary comes to pronounce on the Guildford case shortly, he will not take refuge behind the judges, as I regret he has done in the Birmingham case, and say, "The judges have considered the case and, regrettably, there is nothing that can be done. The correct procedures have been followed." That is the response of the bureaucrat and of the "more than my job's worth" man. I believe that the Home Secretary is a bigger man than that. This new clause gives the opportunity to rise above such a bureaucratic approach, to cut the knot, and to do what he knows to be right in these cases.

Mr. John Patten: It might be for the convenience of the House if I give the Government's view at this stage, having listened with considerable interest to the explanation of the new clause by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) in his powerful speech, the support given by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr.Mullin) and the powerful speech made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in his earlier intervention.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough said, the new clause seeks to give statutory force to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in its sixth report in 1982. We have heard a good

deal about that report tonight. My hon. Friend is also aware that the Government at the time did not accept the Committee's recommendation. The reasons for our disagreement, which were set out fully in our reply to the Committee, to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred, still hold good. The new clause continues to exemplify the difficulties that the Government saw in 1982, and those reasons are on the record.
For the avoidance of any doubt, I should say at the outset that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is prepared to listen to detailed suggestions about evidence concerning individual miscarriages of justice from my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South or the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. They strongly believe in different ways that those cases are the result of miscarriages of justice. I respect their strength of feeling on this matter.
However, I do not think that this is the right forum, whatever else we debate here tonight, for us to go into the rights and wrongs of individual cases. I do not believe that that was the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough in moving the new clause. This is not: he right arena in which to attempt to do that, and I do not believe that at 12.9 am we are in the right frame of mind. Nor do we sit in the right Chamber in which to debate extremely important issues that affect the welfare of people some of whom have been in prison for a considerable time.
I would prefer, with the agreement of the House, to address my remarks to the amendments to legislation which would change the whole system for dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice. That is an extremely important general issue and I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough indicating assent to that. The matter raises important issues of principle which I believe are best addressed as issues of principle, which is the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough said moved him to present the new clause.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I understand that the Minister does not want to go into details of cases raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). However, is the Minister aware that Paddy Armstrong, one of the Guildford four, has suffered a nervous breakdown and that a prison move request has been made by his family? Is he also aware that Paul Hill, another of the four, has had 44 prison moves; that Gerard Conlan is, I understand, still in solitary confinement in a very remote prison which his family cannot visit; and that Carol Richardson is under heavy sedation and not allowed visitors?
Will the Minister undertake to look into the welfare of the four prisoners concerned while he examines the report from the Somerset and Avon constabulary? Will he also undertake to look into the reasons why a nun from my constituency, Sister Sarah from St. Joseph's convent in Highgate, has been refused permission to visit any of the four when she simply wants to make entirely humanitarian and beneficial visits? The attitude of the prison authorities and of the Home Office is causing enormous distress to the families concerned. This has nothing to do with the review of the judicial process which the Home Secretary is presumably undertaking now and about which we expect to hear a statement from him in the near future.

Mr. Patten: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for prison matters


is here today. He has heard all that the hon. Gentleman has said. My hon. Friend and the prison directorate are always concerned about the welfare, both mental and physical, of prisoners in the care of the state. My hon. Friend will consider, without commitment, the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
I will return to the theme that I had begun earlier about the need to look very closely at the questions of principle. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) made that point earlier, and I will deal with one or two of the detailed points that he raised shortly.
My starting point is that we are dealing with an extremely sensitive matter of constitutional principle as well as sensitive personal matters for those in gaol, who others allege may have been wrongfully imprisoned. We must consider both in our discussions tonight.
Miscarriages of justice should, as far as possible, be corrected by the courts. That is common ground across the Chamber. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South indicates from a sedentary position that he agrees with me. I am glad about that, because we have courts of law, juries and magistrates courts to settle as fully as possible questions of guilt or innocence of criminal charges, although there are residual cases that interest the hon. Member for Sunderland, South and myself.
I want to develop that point. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been consistent in his view that, wherever possible, miscarriages of justice should be corrected by the courts and that he would always, with the support of the Lord Chief Justice, be willing to use his power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal more readily. He did so in the case of the Birmingham pub bombers. At present, he has before him papers that should allow him to reach a similar decision in respect of the Guildford and Woolwich cases.

Mr. Mullin: Having done that in respect of the Birmingham case—and it took two years—the Home Secretary got a kick in the teeth. The Lord Chief Justice had a little message for the Home Secretary, which I quoted earlier. He commented that, as with so many cases referred by the Home Secretary, the more the appeal continued, the more it was found not worth the listening.

Mr. Patten: I do not intend any discourtesy, but I rather wish that I had not given way to the hon. Gentleman. I said that I did not intend to discuss, and I will not discuss, the details of individual cases, because to do so would be wrong in this context.
My hon. Friend's new clause deliberately sweeps aside the principle to which I have referred. It is clear from its text that the proposed review body would not simply be a source of advice to my right hon. Friend on exceptional cases, where reference to the Court of Appeal was not an option, but would in many cases supplant the Court of Appeal entirely. That is a tricky line of thought. It is one thing to retain genuine residual Executive discretion where judicial intervention is not an option, but it is quite another to establish what would turn out to be a competing source of judicial authority, which is what the new clause would achieve.
The proposed review body would supplant the Court of Appeal when the normal judicial process is exhausted, and

its decisions would have quasi-judicial authority. Yet, according to subsection (5), the new body, appointed by the Secretary of State of the day,
would have the widest discretion as to the procedures to be adopted in any individual case.
Presumably, that would include rules of evidence. Would it be right, and acceptable to Parliament, to leave such matters to the discretion of the review body alone?
What also worries me about that suggestion is that the person with the power of appointment will be the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, who will have unfettered freedom to appoint whomsoever he wishes. They could be biased in all sorts of ways against, or in favour of, more or less reference, or of a greater or smaller number of those gaoled allegedly unfairly or unwisely being released. Nothing said by hon. Members so far has dealt with that point.

Mr. Ashby: When the Home Secretary is considering exercising his prerogative at present, does he keep strictly to the rules of evidence, or does he go wider? Does he not already choose those from the Department who advise him? Is there anything in the new clause that is different from what happens already—excepting that it would admit the public?

Mr. Patten: Of course my right hon. Friend has his advisers. That touches on the point about C4, raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and other hon. Members, relating to the nature of the advice given to the Home Secretary. Incidentally, as my contribution to open government, I can reveal to the House tonight that C4 has recently been renumbered C3.
Every body, whether the Home Office in the person of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State exercising his discretion or the new body that would be set up by the new clause, will have its advisers. Every body is dependent, to a degree, on the legal advice that comes to it on matters of fact.
The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South, in an important speech—unlike anyone else who has spoken in the debate, he has been Home Secretary—was extremely honest with the House about his views and feelings on the cases with which he was involved. He did not, however, address himself to the possibility that the proposed review body could also be wrong, which causes me to ask where the process stops. It is clear that the process must stop somewhere and that someone must take the decision. What will happen if the Home Secretary of the day disagrees with the advisory body? That is exactly the same as the Court of Appeal disagreeing with the fresh evidence that is put before it. At some stage, someone must take the decision. Despite all the passionately held beliefs of those, such as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South that there are innocent men and women languishing in prison, those people will continue to do so unless and until someone takes the decision to release them. Nothing can persuade the hon. Gentleman that injustice has not been done, but perhaps it will never be possible for him to persuade others that injustice has been done.

Mr. Archer: I have tried to follow carefully the Minister's criticisms of the specific proposals in the new clause. I understand them without necessarily agreeing with them. Does he agree that many Ministers have advisory bodies that advise them in the exercise of their functions? If the proposals were merely for a body to


advise the Home Secretary in the exercise of his prerogative powers, would that meet with some sympathy on his part?

Mr. Patten: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has his advisers in C3. He can refer matters to police forces. That course was taken in the case of the alleged miscarriage of justice involving the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombers. My right hon. Friend has powers to consult lawyers if he so wishes.
There is another practical consideration that I wish to put before the House. We have no reason to think that an independent body of any sort will be able in the end to reach better decisions than those that are arrived at by the courts, which are truly independent bodies. Ultimately, it is a matter of judgment on extremely complex issues. These are judgments that in the end we rightly entrust to the courts.
I can reassure the House that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes seriously any question of alleged miscarriage of justice. It is important that such cases should be gone into thoroughly—just as thoroughly as they were gone into by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South when he was Home Secretary. That is because of the effect that they have on the view that there is injustice, which damages the entire system—we do not wish to see the legal system damaged by allegations of injustice—and, above all else, because of the effect on those who are gaoled and who it is alleged are in prison because of miscarriages of justice.
We do not believe that the proposal that is set out in the new clause is right in principle or in practice. Accordingly, I cannot advise the House to support it.

Mr. Archer: It is unfortunate—I do not lay the blame entirely at the door of the Government's business managers—that we find ourselves discussing a most important subject so late in the evening.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). It is interesting that Members who have little in common politically, and who would not agree on a wide range of issues, can come together in a common quest for truth and justice, and occasionally will surprise those outside our number who think that everything that we do is devoted to party politics. That is something of which the House should be proud.
It is an essential part of any system of criminal law to arrive at conclusions on facts. There is no infallible method of doing that. There is no institutional or procedural device for ensuring that courts never make mistakes of fact. Sometimes we are confronted with cases in which it is either clearly admitted or pretty well certain that mistakes of fact have been made, and that is some comfort, although of course it does not restore the years of freedom that have been taken away from the individuals concerned. What it does is to raise anxiety about the number of cases in which such mistakes never come to light, and people are in prison protesting their innocence and simply being dismissed.
I do not think that we need be defensive about that. Of the thousands of cases that come before the courts each year, it would be surprising if there were not a small proportion in which the courts got their facts wrong. When we learn of a collection of alleged or real

miscarriages of justice—as in Mr. Bob Woffinden's book on the subject—I do not think that we should regard that as a disgrace to our system. I am inclined to think—although none of us knows—that our system probably makes fewer mistakes than many others in the world. It is no disgrace: it simply means that we are not omniscient. It would be a disgrace if, when there was cause for concern, there was no attempt to rectify the matter. It is not admitting a mistake which brings the system into disrepute; it is denying it when there seems to be real reason for anxiety.
In my view, there are three things that we should be doing, and we have been doing them both in Committee and on Report. First, we should be reviewing our procedures to see how we can minimise the mistakes. In Committee we debated whether and when people should be convicted on the basis of uncorroborated confessions. I cannot take that any further tonight, and I do not wish to do so. I had hoped that we would find an opportunity to discuss the desperate underfunding of the forensic service. Forensic scientists can now achieve near-miracles if they are properly funded, both in bringing home guilt and in ensuring that the innocent are not found guilty. One day, when it is within the rules of order, I hope that we can have a discussion on that.
The second thing that I think we should be doing—this is rather different—is considering whether we have the right balance between convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent. There is no way of ensuring that the innocent are never convicted, unless no one is ever convicted. It is sometimes said that it is better for a thousand guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted, but that does not dispose of the problem. What about 5,000 or 10,000? A balance must be struck. Any system of criminal justice is a package, and what we must establish is whether we have got the package about right. Merely increasing the conviction rate does not mean increasing the proper conviction rate.
Thirdly—this is what we are discussing tonight—we require a machinery for examining cases afterwards if there is anxiety about whether a conviction ought to stand. Let me say at once that we must ensure that cases are not reopened lightly. I wholly agree with the Minister that generally it is in everyone's interests that a decision, once reached, should stand—that there should be an element of finality and everyone should know where he is. But that principle cannot be rigidly applied so as to override justice when there is good reason to believe that someone who did not commit an offence is incarcerated in prison, and conversely that someone who did is walking the streets free.
12.30 am
I readily concede that we also need to ensure that these matters should not depend purely on the head of political steam that can be raised for them. We sometimes have to raise a head of political steam because there is no other way of doing anything about it, but the steam that can be raised is not necessarily proportionate to the merits of the case.
It was said earlier in the debate that what has gone wrong in this country can be attributed to two factors, neither of which in itself is discreditable. The first is that the criminal process is adversarial. The court's function is not to ferret out the truth, but to adjudicate between two contestants. One consequence of that is that appeals have


been regarded not as taking another look at where the truth lies but as examining the procedure to see whether the game has been played in accordance with the rules and whether everybody has been given a fair chance. That is necessarily based on the assumption that on the day of the trial the accused was at his best, that full justice was done to the presentation of his case and that his legal advisers were operating at 100 per cent. efficiency. If the procedure has been observed, the tendency is to say to somebody who has lost, "You lost a fair game. Hard luck. Now just take it sportingly." That is a little rough on somebody who is serving a life sentence.
Secondly, a jury is regarded as a venerable and valuable institution, and most Opposition Members would agree with that view. In certain other contexts, we would be arguing exactly that case. There has therefore been a reluctance to reverse a jury's verdict. I should be reluctant to say or to do anything that would cast doubt on the value of a jury, but it has led to the approach that if a jury, properly directed as to the law, and where each side has had an opportunity to put its case, has reached a verdict, that verdict is virtually sacrosanct.
The fact is that from time to time there have been cases where the system has come under pressure because everybody has recognised that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Reference has been made in this debate to the case of Adolph Beck in the early years of this century, who was twice the victim of misidentification. That led to the creation in 1907 of the Court of Criminal Appeal. There was also the Timothy Evans case. From time to time, very distinguished people have sought to do something about it. In 1961, Justice set up a committee to look into the matter. One of the members of that committee was Lord Gardiner. A few years later Lord Gardiner was in a position to do something about it. He was responsible for the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The purpose of that Act was to try to ensure that the Court of Appeal was not circumscribed in the way that has been described.
Clause 1(2) of the 1968 Act says that an appeal may be pursued

"(a) on any ground which involves a question of law alone; and
(b) with the leave of the Court of Appeal, on any ground which involves a question of fact alone, or a question of mixed law and fact, or on any other ground which appears to the Court of Appeal to be a sufficient ground of appeal;".
The Act also says that the Court of Appeal can set aside a conviction
on the ground that under all the circumstances of the case it is unsafe or unsatisfactory".
Unfortunately, that did not turn out as Lord Gardiner had hoped that it would. He had hoped that the Act would lead the courts to ask, not whether they had followed the correct procedure, but whether they had arrived at a proper and safe result.
The reason was simple. There are advantages in having a legal system that has grown pragmatically over the centuries and a process that has developed its own standards and traditions, but it means that judicial and legal thinking carries the weight of six centuries of legal culture. When Parliament makes a specific provision on a matter of detail, the courts faithfully observe it. When Parliament seeks to change an approach, that is much more difficult to achieve, not because the judges

consciously decline to respect the sovereignty of Parliament, but because, just as one cannot make people good or honest by Act of Parliament, so one cannot change people's mental habits by passing a statute.
The courts have not operated in the way that was envisaged when the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 was passed. We are left with some very worrying cases. Whatever our views on the procedures, we cannot fail to be worried by some of the cases that have been mentioned tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and others. We are left with the nasty feeling that the community, in quite properly protecting itself, has committed a serious injustice against those individuals.
When we mention the word "community", we are on dangerous ground. We use the word "community", to describe togetherness and mutual support, but to the individual the community can be a vast, impersonal and uncomprehending entity. If it makes a mistake, the consequences for the individual can be quite crushing.
I believe that we should be grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough, who raised the issue, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, whose contributions over the years have made it possible. I hope that the House will support this initiative. If, subsequently, the Minister says, "We should like to redraft this," most Opposition Members will not complain. But accepting the principle would bring real hope to the families who feel utterly frustrated because they think that the truth about their cases will never emerge.

Mr. Lawrence: Lest any of my hon. Friends have a heart attack, I shall be very brief.
May I say a good word for the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer)—because he had a good word and the frustration must have been considerable—and for the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)? It is very difficult for Conservative Members to share that good feeling, because the hon. Member for Sunderland, South is thoroughly obsessed by what he sincerely believes to be a miscarriage of justice for nearly every terrorist who has ever been convicted in this country. Although that is very interesting, I do not think that it has advanced his case.

Mr. Mullin: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lawrence: I shall not give way, because the hon. Gentleman spoke for a long time.
It has not advanced the case for the new clause, because it asks for an independent review body. The speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South has been thoroughly counter-productive. What we all fear most is that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South would keep the independent review body going.
A case will start with a jury trial, it will then go to the Court of Appeal, and then to the Home Secretary, who will have to refer matters to the independent review body. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South with his voluminous documents, will prove that the matter will require the deepest, the most concerned, the longest and the most thorough consideration. We will never get an end to our criminal trials and no one will ever be convicted. All those who are convicted want to appeal. They will appeal to the Court of Appeal, to the Home Secretary, to the independent review body, to the European Court of Human Rights, and no justice will be done in the land.
There are people in our country who believe that the best way to cure terrorism and the extremes of crime from which our society is suffering is for those who are guilty to be convicted. I do not think that the independent review body is the answer to possible miscarriage of justice. We need an investigative body within the Court of Appeal. We need to strengthen the Court of Appeal, but this proposal would weaken it and that is why I am opposed to it. This new clause amounts to an attack on the basis of the Court of Appeal. People who are tried and cry "miscarriage of justice" are not always the victims of a miscarriage of justice. This proposal will put a new tier into the appeals procedure in the criminal system and lead to a massive amount of delay, bureaucracy, expense and, in the end, injustice.
It is not the proposal that I find strange: it is the fact that some of my hon. Friends—the Members for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison)—think that to undermine the status of the Court of Appeal, to have more bureacracy and a new tier of appeal that will be fuelled by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, would be good for justice.
It is said that there is public disquiet over the system, but that disquiet is largely the result of media activity. As someone who occasionally sees these problems from the inside, I may say that sometimes the media are justified, but more often than not they are wrong. One outcome of this proposal would be that the media would exercise an ever-increasing influence on referrals and, perhaps, on decisions. Of course the media have an important part to play in our democratic system, but we are slipping into the danger that they are laying claim to take over the decisions in our legal system. The process of justice would not be served by that. It is because I am fearful about the way in which that activity could develop that I am against the proposal.
Our system is not perfect, and we need to improve it, but we will not improve it in this way. We will improve it by equipping the Court of Appeal with an independent power of investigation and a staff of investigators. That would strengthen respect for the court and reduce the chances of a miscarriage of justice. The proposal upon which we are asked to vote now will only weaken the system. Because I am against such a weakening I shall not support it, and I hope that all hon. Members will do likewise.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Waddington): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 124, Noes 43.

Division No. 362]
[12.42 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Amos, Alan
Bottomley, Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bright, Graham


Ashby, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Atkins, Robert
Burt, Alistair


Atkinson, David
Butterfill, John


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Beggs, Roy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carrington, Matthew


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda





Chapman, Sydney
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Chope, Christopher
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Miller, Sir Hal


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mills, Iain


Cran, James
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Needham, Richard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Neubert, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Dunn, Bob
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Durant, Tony
Paice, James


Evennett, David
Paisley, Rev Ian


Farr, Sir John
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Favell, Tony
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Porter, David (Waveney)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Portillo, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Powell, William (Corby)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Forth, Eric
Rhodes James, Robert


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Ryder, Richard


Freeman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gale, Roger
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sims, Roger


Gill, Christopher
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hampson, Dr Keith
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Hanley, Jeremy
Squire, Robin


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Steen, Anthony


Hind, Kenneth
Stern, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Summerson, Hugo


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Jackson, Robert
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Janman, Tim
Tracey, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Knapman, Roger
Walden, George


Lawrence, Ivan
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Lightbown, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lilley, Peter
Watts, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wheeler, John


Lord, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Maclean, David
Wood, Timothy


Major, Rt Hon John



Malins, Humfrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mans, Keith
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)





NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
McNamara, Kevin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Beckett, Margaret
Mullin, Chris


Bermingham, Gerald
Nellist, Dave


Boateng, Paul
Pike, Peter L.


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Randall, Stuart


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Corbyn, Jeremy
Reid, Dr John


Dixon, Don
Richardson, Jo


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Short, Clare


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Spearing, Nigel


Gordon, Mildred
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Vaz, Keith


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Wall, Pat


Haynes, Frank
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Worthington, Tony


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Macdonald, Calum A.
Mr. Alun Michael and Mrs. Llin Golding.


McGrady, Eddie



McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided:Ayes 45, Noes 121.

Division No. 363]
[12.54 am


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Ashby, David
McNamara, Kevin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Michael, Alun


Beckett, Margaret
Mowlam, Marjorie


Boateng, Paul
Nellist, Dave


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Pike, Peter L.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Randall, Stuart


Corbyn, Jeremy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Dixon, Don
Reid, Dr John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Richardson, Jo


Farr, Sir John
Short, Clare


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Spearing, Nigel


Golding, Mrs Llin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Gordon, Mildred
Vaz, Keith


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wall, Pat


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Haynes, Frank
Worthington, Tony


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Chris Mullin and Mr. Gerald Bermingham.


Macdonald, Calum A.



McGrady, Eddie





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Gale, Roger


Amess, David
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Amos, Alan
Gill, Christopher


Arbuthnot, James
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hanley, Jeremy


Atkinson, David
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Batiste, Spencer
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Beggs, Roy
Hind, Kenneth


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Boswell, Tim
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bottomley, Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bowis, John
Jackson, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Janman, Tim


Bright, Graham
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Kirkhope, Timothy


Buck, Sir Antony
Knapman, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Lawrence, Ivan


Butterfill, John
Lightbown, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lilley, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Carrington, Matthew
Lord, Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
Maclean, David


Chope, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Malins, Humfrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mans, Keith


Cran, James
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Miller, Sir Hal


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mills, Iain


Devlin, Tim
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dunn, Bob
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Durant, Tony
Needham, Richard


Evennett, David
Neubert, Michael


Favell, Tony
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Paice, James


Forman, Nigel
Paisley, Rev Ian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Forth, Eric
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Porter, David (Waveney)


Freeman, Roger
Portillo, Michael





Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rhodes James, Robert
Tracey, Richard


Ryder, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walden, George


Sims, Roger
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wheeler, John


Squire, Robin
Widdecombe, Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Steen, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Stern, Michael



Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Summerson, Hugo



Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Question accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I wish to object strongly to the motion. Opposition Members see no reason whatever why we should adjourn consideration of the Bill at this hour —which is comparatively early for the House of Commons. We are gratified by the interest shown by Conservative Members, although it is strange that they are here on a whipped basis whereas Opposition Members are here out of interest. It is significant that throughout our debates today the Opposition Benches have been far fuller than the Conservative Benches.
It seems that the Government are suffering from a strange panic at this state of affairs. They moved a closure on the last group of amendments when hon. Members on both sides of the House still wished to speak. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that only 121 Conservative Members voted in the last Division; I suppose that the Government fear that the figure will fall below the magical 100 needed for a Division if we continue the business.
The issues that we have been discussing today are extremely important, and we have heard important contributions from both sides of the House. To enlighten those Conservative Members who have not been here during all our proceedings, perhaps we should remind them of exactly what we have been discussing.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for gross intimidation of Government Back-Bench Members to take place to prevent them from exercising their freedom to return home at this time of night because of the Government's determination to keep more than 100 Members here? It is a gross infringement of the rights of Members of this House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I know nothing about any intimidation. The only thing that is delaying us is these speeches.

Mrs. Taylor: Perhaps we should return to the difficult task of enlightening Conservative Members about what we have been discussing today. It seems that they are afraid to leave and that some arm-twisting is going on. The problems in the Government Whips Office seem to be increasing all the time.
The House has discussed reporting restrictions on Crown court proceedings and torture—the latter is pertinent to Conservative Members at this late hour. In


Committee the Minister gave assurances on both issues, and we pay tribute to him for returning to the House this evening and fulfilling those assurances. We also discussed extradition, so that the Government could make yet another correction to a Bill that has been through the House of Commons once already—before the general election—through every stage in the House of Lords and through a Committee of the House. Yet at this late stage the Government are having to correct some of its basic provisions.
The House also had to discuss two completely new issues. Government new clause 79 dealt with the enforcement of Northern Ireland orders in Scotland. The Government were not ready to introduce it even at the Committee stage of the Bill. My hon. Friends and the Minister spent a grand total of 20 minutes on that new clause, which is hardly a filibuster by anyone's standards.
Government new clause 80 dealt with body samples in Northern Ireland. Again, the Government did not tell us before Report that they intended to introduce that issue into the Bill. Depite the fact that it was a controversial and completely new measure, the House spent only one hour and two minutes discussing it. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the House has not been tardy, but has made progress.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with adjourning the debate now is that it may give the Minister another weekend in which to think up more amendments? When the Bill was in Committee, after every weekend adjournment new ideas were brought before us.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. Every time we had an adjournment, even during the week, we always had new amendments from the Government. The problem was that most of them——

Mr. Lawrence: Were bright new ideas.

Mrs. Taylor: They were not bright new ideas. Most of the amendments were to correct Government mistakes in legislation that has been before both Houses of Parliament twice during the past couple of years. We still have to discuss 191 separate Government amendments to correct provisions in the Bill.
The debate that we should have been having this evening includes some important issues that Opposition Members believe deserve proper discussion. That is why we are willing to stay in the House tonight and discuss those matters at greater length. They include not only new clauses tabled by Opposition Members, but new clauses and amendments tabled by Conservative Members. They include, for example, the question of children giving evidence through video recordings, a subject that I should have thought would be of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. That is covered by the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) as well as by Opposition Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I do not know where Conservative Members are, but I know where Opposition Members are. They are in the Chamber and ready to discuss the issue as soon as the Government give way and allow us to make progress tonight.
The measures also include a new clause on corporal punishment tabled by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos). He may believe that it is too late, but we are

certainly willing to discuss the matter. The measures also include new clause 16, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), in which there is a great deal of public interest of which we are all aware. Perhaps the explanation for our early adjournment is that the Government are afraid of being seen to state their case so clearly on new clause 16.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Many hon. Members are particularly interested in new clause 16. The hon. Lady appears to be complaining that the new clause should have been reached, yet was not reached. Surely one reason why it was not reached was that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) went on far too long.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I am not complaining that new clause 16 has not been discussed. It could still be discussed this evening, and I do not understand why the Government have moved tins motion to prevent discussion on new clause 16. We would rather stay here and discuss many of the other important measures tabled for debate this evening. We should like to discuss the sale of knives to juveniles, an important issue in society at present, with the increase in violence. We would have been happy to discuss the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks), although we disagree with it.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: When may we discuss new clause 16? What is the hon. Lady's estimate of the time?

Mrs. Taylor: I hope that the Government will reconsider their position. If the hon. Gentleman is telling me that Ministers are now willing to withdraw the motion, we will be able to talk about that matter tonight. Why do we not make progress? I shall not say how long Conservative Members will talk on these issues. Many Conservative Members who have spoken tonight have taken just as much time as Opposition Members, with one exception, which was due to a very good case and some provocation from Conservative Members.
There are other important issues that we could continue to debate this evening and that the Government are trying to squeeze into a very crowded parliamentary timetable next week, including income-related fines, anonymity in rape cases and breath tests and the amount of alcohol that people are allowed in their blood when they are driving. We should have debated the important issue of the suspension of passports—the subject of a proposal tabled by a Conservative Member.
All those issues are important and they could still be debated this morning. I do not understand why the Government are panicking now. There is no suggestion at this stage that the Government business for tomorrow will be lost. There are many hours to go before we reach tomorrow's business. If the Minister proposes to press the motion, I hope that he will tell us when we will have adequate time to discuss all those issues.
The Government have already told us that they expect the remaining stages of the Bill to be completed on Monday. Is the Minister saying that all the new clauses that I have mentioned, the Opposition amendments and the 191 Government amendments will all be debated and voted upon on Monday? That will not allow the House sufficient time to deal seriously with these issues. We


strongly object to the motion, and we demand extra time for the Bill if the Government insist on taking it off the agenda this morning.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I think that the Minister is offended. I do not know what you do with Ministers when they get offended, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you will have to make some reparation because once they have the sulks, you have to look after them. The Minister is one of the up-and-coming, rising stars of the Tory party. At least, they said so several years ago. I am not sure, after tonight's performance, that The Daily Telegraph and the other so-called quality press will be saying that.
I have listened to this legal filibuster tonight. At least I thought it was going to be a legal filibuster before you took over the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I have been around this place for a while—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Conservative Members should sing it. They are all in chorus.
I wondered what would happen when the legal wallahs got together tonight. I came into the Chamber at about 8 pm. I noticed that the debate did not start until 5.39 pm. I said to one of my mates then, "When these lawyers get started, this will last a long time." One hon. Member, who is not a lawyer, has dropped off. I can understand the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) being tired, because he was up all night on the Housing Bill and he wanted to go to Ascot. I think that he went to Ascot today and he probably backed the Gold Cup winner, which then got disqualified. I have probably hit the nail on the head there. I think that there should be a stewards' inquiry into why the hon. Member for Crawley is dropping off while I am speaking.
When I came into the Chamber, I thought, "All these lawyers are talking like a snobs' filibuster." There were Privy Councillors and hon. Members could not get in to speak, not even if they cried out. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) was called. I thought, "Well, that makes a break because he is not a lawyer." 
Immediately my hon. Friend began to speak, the Conservatives heckled him. Those people have been in the law courts all day. They pick up £30,000 a year on top of their parliamentary salaries. A layman then comes along and talks like a lawyer. Anybody dropping into the Chamber might have thought, "Hello, there's another one." My hon. Friend might have been trying hard—I do not know—but immediately he began, the so-called genteel hon. and learned Members started to heckle him.
On top of that, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlisle)—the so-called salad lawyer, who belongs to the party that dare not speak its name —did not get called, and, to make reparation, he intervened. He reckons that he is one of the so-called liberals and is humanitarian down to his toenails. Nevertheless, he attacked my hon. Friend's speech on some great libertarian issue, only because the hon. and learned Gentleman was mad at not getting the first chance to talk about it.
I was looking forward to a long night. I noticed the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) enter the

Chamber with a stack of law books. When Members arrive with law books, one knows that they will put an hour or two under their belts.
I examined the amendments to learn which subjects were to be debated. I saw that they included video recordings, water fluoridation, exemption from jury service and the sale of knives. On and on they went. I thought that I would be able to sit back, for they were nothing to do with me. I thought also that the debate would be above board, and that there would be no arguments about filibustering when the lawyers got started.
The time is nearly half past one in the morning. It is still early. Debate on this Bill did not begin until 5.39 pm, but the Tories have already thrown in the towel.

Mr. Don Dixon: They have the weekend off.

Mr. Skinner: It is a cushy number, when one thinks about it. We have been on night shift once this week, and I tried to organise three more. I thought we would have another one tonight, but the Government have thrown in the towel. The Labour Front Bench was threatened by the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House yesterday with having the Short money taken away for allegedly losing control. Now that the Government have lost control of their business, I believe that all their Whips should lose their money. [Interruption.] I heard one or two remarks then from the Conservative Benches suggesting that I have some support for that idea.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know Standing Orders inside out. Let us have a snap vote under Standing Order No. 30—count hon. Members in the Chamber before they change their minds and before the Whips have twisted their arms. The Government have lost control.
Neither is the situation fair to the Chair. Word went around earlier that it was going to be a lawyers' night, and that the debate would last into the early hours of the morning. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker and the Deputy Speakers have made various arrangements, but now they will all fall by default. I am not a lawyer, but I think that the Bill will be guillotined.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Government would not dare do that.

Mr. Skinner: There is now a guillotine on the Housing Bill. The Government have so much business that they do not know which way to turn. Notwithstanding all the important hon. and learned Members who want to contribute, I believe that a guillotine motion will be introduced for this Bill next week. I may tell my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that the House will not be allowed to discuss the topics that she mentioned earlier. They will all have to go by the board when the Government introduce another guillotine to cut this Bill's throat.
We ought to carry on. Those hon. Members who prepared for another all-night sitting should join my hon. Friends in the Division Lobbies to ensure that we may have another vote.
There is another reason why we should not stop this debate. The Strangers' Gallery is full. All those people are interested in the Bill and in the amendments. The Government should reverse their decision and allow the House to carry on through the night. We can go straight through the weekend if we like. What is wrong with that? 
Royal Ascot finishes tomorrow, so we do not have that to worry about. We do not have to bother about watching England on the box. As near as damn it, the English football team has been knocked out of the European championship. We might as well continue discussing the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury wants to continue, and we have a reserve team outside that will arrive later in the morning. What are we to do? Are we to send a signal to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)—he has missed three or four Divisions this evening—who is hot-footing it back to the House to take part in the proceedings tomorrow?
For all the reasons that I have advanced, I think that we should continue.

Mr. Bermingham: There are two short, sharp reasons, which perhaps the Minister will take on board over the weekend, for not adjourning the debate tonight. A number of new clauses are in jeopardy. Those new clauses contain ideas that cross party boundaries. I draw the Minister's attention to new clause 16, which stands in the names of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), myself and others.
If the Minister can be bothered to listen, I suggest that he should take two lessons away with him to consider over the weekend. First, it is clear that new clause 16 has all-party support. If he looks around, he will see that it has the support of many ordinary, decent people. There are many who are strongly in favour of it. Secondly, those who practise in the courts know of the problems and the embarrassments that are sometimes associated with jury service. Rumour has it that the Minister is not in favour of new clause 16, but he might like to spend the weekend asking those who practise in the courts what they feel about the reluctant juror.
At the beginning of the century, anyone who was reluctant to fight in the armed services was castigated and attacked. Time has taught us that some of the bravest men in the world were those who conscientiously objected to fighting, but were prepared to give their lives willingly on the battlefield as stretcher bearers. That sort of attitude and change of attitude—[Interruption.] I regret, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we have reached the stage in the evening when we witness what might almost be described as loutish behaviour on the Government Benches. If Conservative Members have comments to make, perhaps they will rise from their semi-sedentary or lying positions —I mean lying in the sense of being flat out—and be kind enough to intervene.
I am prepared always to give way and to listen to any intelligent remarks that Conservative Members may care to make. I regret that on occasions snide, snarled and rude remarks are made by Conservative Members. Such comments do them no credit. We have watched and identified, and those who watch us generally have done so as well. If the hon. Gentleman in the middle of the back row of Benches above the Gangway, who is lying on his side, wants to call me rude names. have the courage to stand up and do it, boyo.

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was a complete and absolute gratuitous insult, and it was entirely untrue. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has not

yet made any real comment on the motion. He is indulging in time wasting, bad behaviour and unparliamentary behaviour.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall stop the hon. Gentleman before he goes too far. I do not know whether the House understood to whom the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) was referring, but I did not. It might help if the House were to allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed with his speech.

Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard what was said and I ignored it. As always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rely upon your protection in this place. I know of the fairness that is shown by the Chair.
I return to the question of the adjournment of the debate. Perhaps the Minister will take time to consider new clause 83, which seeks to reduce the permitted level of alchohol in the bloodstream in drink-driving cases. It is clear from what is now being said by the experts—and the same feeling can be found in many parts of the land—that the time has come for the question of drinking and driving to be considered seriously again.
I deprecate the motion to adjourn the debate. I have —perhaps naughtily—used the opportunity to mention to the Minister two matters that are of considerable concern to me, and indeed to hon. Members of all parties. I hope that over the weekend the Minister will take on board those few simple thoughts and spare a little time to reflect that outside this place a considerable number of people are desperately concerned about those two issues. Perhaps on Monday wisdom will reign and the two new clauses will pass into law.

Mr. Allen McKay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to raise a question through you, as I am a little disturbed about new clause 16. I received a letter this morning—which means that it must have been posted yesterday—which clearly indicates that new clause 16 will be guillotined out. We are so near to that new clause that it seems significant that we should be closing the debate at this stage. Can we hear from the Minister that new clause 16 will be debated?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Obviously I cannot be responsible for, or answer to, anything that may be contained in a letter to any hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman has asked the Minister. Perhaps it would have been sensible to allow the Minister to comment.

Mr. John Patten: I find myself in some difficulty. I do not have the letter to which the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) has referred, so I cannot comment on it.

Mr. McKay: I shall let the Minister have a copy.

Mr. Patten: That is very kind of the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), will I think agree that the Committee stage was very instructive throughout, and was conducted in a very good-humoured way. The Government responded to Opposition Members as


constructively as they could on a number of occasions, and at no time was there any rancour in the many hours of debate.
I believe—or, rather, suspect—that when the hon. Member for Dewsbury addressed her cornflakes and coffee, or whatever she had for breakfast, she did not believe that by 1.37 am the next day we would have made so little progress on the Bill. I think that she suspected that by 1.37 am she would be safely tucked up in bed signing constituency correspondence or reading an agreeable book, but certainly not still here, our having made relatively little progress on the Bill.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I do not wish to go further into my habits at breakfast or anything else of that kind, but if we were all so sure that we would make such quick progress, why did the Minister report to the Opposition Whip that he had brought his flannelette pyjamas this morning?

Mr. Patten: I do not want to fall into the same trap as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) in reporting private conversations, but I am bound to say that I think that I had better. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme quipped to me behind the Chair, "Have you brought your nightie?" I simply answered that I had not, but that I was otherwise fully prepared to discuss these matters. I see that the hon. Lady does not dissent from the joke that she directed at me: she has not denied that those were her words.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Why did she think that my hon. Friend wanted a nightie?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend raises a question that he had better ask the hon. Lady, perhaps behind the Chair. He may get a better answer than I did.
I do not believe that the hon. Member for Dewsbury thought this morning that we should not make the kind of progress that was characteristic of the whole of the Committee stage. We have had some important debates, some of which have been rather long. I believe that important issues are best discussed when hon. Members have had a chance to reflect on the considerable contrast between the proceedings today and those in Committee, when there was all-party agreement. It would be much better to address next Monday to such important issues as video-recorded evidence, exemption from jury service and the carrying of knives.

Mr. Archer: Before the Minister sits downs——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the Minister concluded his speech?

Mr. Patten: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have sat down.

Mr. Worthington: The Minister was quite right to refer to a constructive Committee stage. All those who served on the Committee came to the Chamber hoping that that constructive attitude would continue, and my impression is that that is what has occurred. However, one of the problems is that the Minister thinks that he can get a seat on the Cabinet by introducing a new clause every day. He works according to some obscure productivity bonus. There are 27 new clauses. They were not examined by the Committee.
This Bill started its progress through Parliament shortly after the second world war. When I saw my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) the other day, he told me that he remembered serving in a Committee on the Bill when he had hair. If we are to do justice to the Government's legislation, what are we to do when 27 new clauses and 200 new amendments are thrown at us? The Minister admitted tonight that he had made a mistake; he had remembered the colonies, and they were suddenly brought into the Bill. After considering these matters for nearly 40 years, the colonies were remembered, but no hon. Member could spontaneously remember where or what the colonies were.
Immensely important issues have still to be considered. We have been making steady progress. I deny that there has been any filibustering. The Opposition are enthusiastic about continuing the consideration of important issues. Given the interest that has been expressed in the subject, one feels a particular sense of guilt about being unable to consider tonight the matter of conscientious objection to jury service. It would be disgraceful if the House did not consider that issue, having given the impression that it would be considered today after interest had been expressed in the subject. Public interest has also been expressed in another important issue—video evidence. It would be a great pity if consideration of that issue had to wait until next week.
I agree with my hon. Friends that we ought to continue the proceedings and deal with those issues. We are at our best now. The Minister said that he was at his best in the morning, but the Opposition are fighting fit and ready to continue. This hand-picked team has been asked rigorously to consider the Bill. When we run out of steam round about next Thursday, our second team will come in.

Mr. Waddington: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Archer (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I recognise that if the Government Whips choose to close the debate by a procedural motion on a matter of such importance, that is a matter of courtesy, rather than a matter for the Chair, and we have to bear it with fortitude. I raise a point of order for the good name of the House.
People in the Strangers Gallery may think that the attitude of the House during the past few minutes has been somewhat frivolous. Those who are Members of the House know that this happens from time to time and that it does not diminish the attention that we give to the importance of the business.
People in the Gallery are technically strangers, but they have been sitting there all day because they have a very real interest in new clause 16.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that in our proceedings we take no account of those who are outside the Chamber. It is contrary to our usual practice to make any reference to them. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to the character of our proceedings during the past few minutes, nothing has occurred that is out of order, and there is certainly nothing for me to deal with.

The House having divided: Ayes 114, Noes 24.

Division No. 364]
[1.44 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Knapman, Roger


Amess, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Amos, Alan
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Arbuthnot, James
Lilley, Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Lord, Michael


Ashby, David
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, David
Maclean, David


Batiste, Spencer
Major, Rt Hon John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Malins, Humfrey


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mans, Keith


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Boswell, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bottomley, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bowis, John
Miller, Sir Hal


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Mills, Iain


Bright, Graham
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Buck, Sir Antony
Needham, Richard


Burt, Alistair
Neubert, Michael


Butterfill, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Carrington, Matthew
Paice, James


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Chapman, Sydney
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Chope, Christopher
Porter, David (Waveney)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Portillo, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Powell, William (Corby)


Cran, James
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Ryder, Richard


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Devlin, Tim
Sims, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Farr, Sir John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Favell, Tony
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Steen, Anthony


Forman, Nigel
Stern, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Forth, Eric
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Summerson, Hugo


Freeman, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Gale, Roger
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Gill, Christopher
Tracey, Richard


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hanley, Jeremy
Walden, George


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Hind, Kenneth
Watts, John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Wheeler, John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Widdecombe, Ann


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Wood, Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral W)



Jackson, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Janman, Tim
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Kirkhope, Timothy





NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Michael, Alun


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Beggs, Roy
Mullin, Chris


Bermingham, Gerald
Nellist, Dave


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Short, Clare


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Gordon, Mildred
Vaz, Keith


Haynes, Frank
Worthington, Tony


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Allen McKay.


McNamara, Kevin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned:—

The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 21.

Division No. 365]
[2.00 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Kirkhope, Timothy


Amess, David
Knapman, Roger


Amos, Alan
Lawrence, Ivan


Arbuthnot, James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Lilley, Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Ashby, David
Lord, Michael


Atkinson, David
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Batiste, Spencer
Maclean, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Major, Rt Hon John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Mans, Keith


Boswell, Tim
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Bottomley, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bowis, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Miller, Sir Hal


Bright, Graham
Mills, Iain


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Buck, Sir Antony
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Burt, Alistair
Needham, Richard


Butterfill, John
Neubert, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Carrington, Matthew
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Paice, James


Chapman, Sydney
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Chope, Christopher
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Portillo, Michael


Cran, James
Powell, William (Corby)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Ryder, Richard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Devlin, Tim
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Dunn, Bob
Sims, Roger


Durant, Tony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Farr, Sir John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Favell, Tony
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Steen, Anthony


Forman, Nigel
Stern, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Forth, Eric
Summerson, Hugo


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Freeman, Roger
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Gale, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Tracey, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Walden, George


Hanley, Jeremy
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Watts, John


Hind, Kenneth
Wheeler, John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Widdecombe, Ann


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Winterton, Nicholas


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Wood, Timothy


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)



Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jackson, Robert
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Janman, Tim





NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Haynes, Frank


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Beggs, Roy
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Bermingham, Gerald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McNamara, Kevin


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Mullin, Chris


Dixon, Don
Nellist, Dave


Golding, Mrs Llin
Paisley, Rev Ian


Gordon, Mildred
Skinner, Dennis






Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Noes:


Vaz, Keith
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Alun Michael.


Worthington, Tony

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

Commercial Vehicles

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move:
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6511/88 on the weight limit for two axle rigid vehicles and the un-numbered explanatory memorandum dated 24th May 1988, submitted by the Department of Transport, describing a draft Directive amending Directive 85/3/EEC on the weights, dimensions and certain other technical characteristics of certain road vehicles; and endorses the Government's objective of securing Community arrangements which would make it possible to keep axle spacings and axle weights within current United Kingdom limits in order to safeguard bridges in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have lost a bit of steam now. I wanted to raise a fair point of order. Before he leaves the Chamber, that thing there—[interruption.] Oh, he has not left; he has sat down. I am talking about the Chief Whip. I was the only one who was standing to contribute. Because it was me, he went up to the Chair and suggested that you should accept the closure. He put pressure on you——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member must not jump to conclusions about what advice the Chair may or may not have received. Does he wish to pursue his point of order?

Mr. Haynes: I do. I wanted the opportunity to make a few remarks about what Conservative Members had said, but that thing there came up to you and suggested a closure—[Interruption.] Oh, shut up. I think that that lot has been to Ascot and had too much to drink, by the sound of them. I have the Floor, not that lot. It is time that you kept control of these public schoolboy louts, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My point of order is that I was stopped from making a short contribution from the Tribune Bench next to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I do not reckon to sit there; I reckon to sit here, near where I am. You saw me, Sir. I would have been called but for the fact that the Chief Whip went up to you and stopped me. I have always given co-operation to the Chair and always will, but that thing there will get no co-operation from me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair deprecates that style of addressing or referring to another hon. Member. It is very regrettable and most discourteous.
The acceptance or otherwise of the motion, That the Question be now put, is a matter for the discretion of the Chair. Responsibility was mine, and mine alone, and it remains mine. I accepted the motion and put it to the House. Mr. Peter Bottomley.

Mr. Haynes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not finished yet. It is all right for Conservative Members; they can do just as they like and get away with it. I want the opportunity to express my views. The Government Chief Whip usually sits in his place on the Front Bench, but he was not sitting there when I rose. He came to see you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What am I to believe other than that I have been denied the right to speak?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I repeat that the acceptance of a motion that is put to the House is within the discretion of


the Chair. I exercised my discretion and the responsibility is mine. By implication, the hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically criticising me. I very much hope that he will not persist with that line. Mr. Peter Bottomley.

Mr. Haynes: Further to the point of order——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman made his view clear to the House. I can well understand his anger, but he must not persist. We should get on with the business. Mr. Peter Bottomley.

Mr. Haynes: But——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for a long time. He is a highly respected Member of the House and he is behaving very uncharacteristically.

Mr. Haynes: Further to the——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in provoking the Chair.

Mr. Bottomley: The draft directives concern the weights of two, three and four-axled vehicles used in international transport. These are due to be discussed in the European Council meeting on 20 and 21 June. The discussions do not concern the United Kingdom derogation for 38-tonne articulated vehicles—by far the most important vehicles used in international transport to and from the United Kingdom. They do not affect national standards applicable to United Kingdom operation. In total, the directives apply to some 0·3 per cent.—one in 1,000—of goods vehicles on our roads.
Some time ago, proposals were put forward by the Commission. In December 1984, the Council agreed a draft directive on lorry weights and dimensions, which was debated on 18 December 1984. The directive was published as 85/3/EEC. It set gross vehicle weight limits for five and six-axled vehicle combinations—articulated lorries and drawbar combinations. In June 1986 the Council agreed the maximum drive axle weight for such vehicles, which we debated on 1 July. The Council's decision was incorporated in directive 86/360/EEC.
Both the directives that I have mentioned—85/3 and 86/360—contain derogations that allow the United Kingdom to maintain lower limits for certain weights than are permitted in the directives. This was intended to give us time to strengthen some of our bridges for the increased weights. Our limit for articulated lorries is 38 tonnes.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister's remark that the derogations give time for the United Kingdom to strengthen bridges a statement of Government policy? Is that the only reason why we have not increased total weight to 40 tonnes and why we have not increased from 10·5 to 11·5 tonnes the maximum weight on the drive axle?

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that to get the derogation we had to argue reasonable cause. As he knows, the reasonable cause is the condition of our roads and bridges. We recently announced a bridge strengthening and survey programme, which will last for 15 years or more. That should help to answer the question that the hon. Gentleman rightly asked, and my words and the words that the Government have used before will be well known in Europe. I hope that that shows that there is no change in the situation. We spelt out the matter plainly.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Why does the Minister say that the derogation was of a limited period —perhaps 15 years—given that when the issue was debated in Parliament on 18 December 1984, the then Secretary of State for Transport, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, said that it was of indefinite duration. How can the Government say that it is of indefinite duration at one moment, to get the proposal through, and then say suddenly that things have changed and that it is not indefinite at all?

Mr. Bottomley: It was to be open-ended. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend said "indefinite" or "open-ended", but we can take it—[Interruption.] Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to speak for a moment, and I shall try to answer him. I take the two words to mean the same——

Mr. Taylor: That is stupid.

Mr. Bottomley: I do not wish in any way to change the words used by my right hon. Friend in that debate, nor the sense of them. I was about to explain that the only thing that has changed is that we have announced the bridge survey programme, which is not likely to be completed in the near future.
Our limit for articulated lorries is 38 tonnes, and our drive axle weight limit is 10·5 tonnes. The Commission has proposed no change to those arrangements. It is important that the logic of the derogation prevails for all the other vehicles now subject to discussion.
It has always been the intention to harmonise the weights and dimensions of all heavy vehicles used throughout the Community. Five and six-axled vehicle combinations are the main type of vehicle used in international transport. However, the Council has now considered two, three and four-axled vehicles, which were the subject of earlier proposals in 1971 and 1979–81.
For two-axled lorries the weight proposed is 18 tonnes; that compares with a United Kingdom limit of 17 tonnes. The weight proposed for three-axled lorries is 25 tonnes, compared with 24·4 tonnes in the United Kingdom, and that for four-axled lorries is 32 tonnes, compared with 30·5 tonnes in the United Kingdom. The weight proposed for all four-axled combinations is 36 tonnes, while here it is 32·5 tonnes. The drive axle weight for all those vehicles is proposed to be 11·5 tonnes, whereas in the United Kingdom it is 10·5 tonnes.
Directive 86/360 already sets a limit of 11·5 tonnes for the drive axle of five-axled combinations but contains a derogation allowing us to maintain our existing limit of 10·5 tonnes for this axle. The draft directives present the opportunity for member states to question the United Kingdom's need for a similar derogation for two, three and four-axled vehicles. It is important that the derogation is maintained for all those vehicles. If any attempt is made to remove our right to a derogation at the forthcoming Council meeting, we shall resist it with the utmost vigour.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: This is the fundamental point. Am I right in thinking that the decision will be made by a simple majority at the Council of Ministers? If so, how will the Secretary of State resist our European partners' proposal to remove the derogation?

Mr. Bottomley: With the derogation of 10·5 tonnes on five and six-axled combination articulated vehicles, it is self-evidently ludicrous—whether in English, French,


German, Greek or any other language—to go for more than 10·5 tonnes in respect of any other vehicle. If the limiting factor is the maximum weight per axle, it would be crazy to ask for a higher weight for some vehicles and not for others. That is why the 10·5 tonne axle limit is important, and the House should give its full backing to the Government's desire to preserve it. It is a matter of common sense, but it will also help my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Monday if he has the full backing of the House.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Will my hon. Friend accept the gratitude of my constituents for his courageous stand, and will he continue to show such strength and fortitude in the years ahead?

Mr. Bottomley: We certainly will. We did it for the 38-tonne vehicle, and we shall do it for these.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Government have already given in on 38-tonne vehicles.

Mr. Bottomley: I said exactly the opposite. The more the hon. Gentleman says that, the more he is likely to mislead the people who will be in negotiation with us. If the hon. Gentleman had his heart and mind in the right place, he would say that the Government are getting it right. There is no prospect of losing that derogation for a very long time. Sometimes I wonder whether Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends are acting for those on the other side of the Channel who want to have heavier weights or heavier drive axles on our roads. I offer those remarks in parenthesis, as I wish their remarks had been made behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, not in front of it.
With a 10·5 tonne drive axle, it would not be practical for a two-axled lorry to weigh more than our present limit of 17 tonnes, and 6·5 tonnes is the practical limit for the front steering axle. The proposed 25 tonnes for the three-axled lorry is only half a tonne more than our present limit and presents no problems for bridges or roads.
However, the four-axled lorry is slightly more difficult because there is a potential problem with bridges. Our current four-axled vehicle is already the critical determinant of bridge loading. It would be technically feasible to permit the proposed increased weight of 32 tonnes provided that there was sufficient distance between the front and rear axles. The formula in the draft directive of 5 tonnes per metre is acceptable to us and we would deem it essential for it to remain unchanged. There would be some increase in road wear with the four-axled vehicles, but very few rigid vehicles are used in international transport to and from the United Kingdom, so there would be almost no practical effect. Some member states favour a formula for weight against wheelbase which, if agreed, could cause significant bridge overload and so is totally unacceptable to the United Kingdom. We shall resist that in favour of the Commission's proposal.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Emphasis is laid, both in the explanatory memorandum and in the Minister's speech, on the suggestion that the measure will be restricted to international traffic. Where in the draft directive does it state that the measure is restricted to international traffic? How will the directive restrict itself solely to international

traffic, and how will the Government or the Community prevent people from taking advantage of the changes from a domestic point of view?

Mr. Bottomley: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman in detail later. In many other areas, the directive covers international trade and not the national regimes. The draft directive covers international traffic, but does not cover national regulations for national traffic. The same applies to drivers' hours. In practical terms, we are talking about one vehicle in a thousand. We are talking not about the popular five and six-axle units, but about units that make up 0·3 per cent. of our heavy goods vehicles. The majority of vehicles used in international transport have five or six axles and are unaffected by the proposals. I was talking about four-axle vehicles and said that we would resist the idea of adopting a weight against wheelbase formula in favour of the Commission's proposal.
Let me now turn to the question of the four-axle combinations which are articulated lorries or drawbar trailer combinations. The weight limit proposed by the Commission is 36 tonnes, whereas our present limit in this country is 32·5 tonnes. Some member states would wish even higher weights for axle articulated vehicles. Although the directive applies only to vehicles used in international traffic, which answers the hon. Gentleman's point, and would not force us to increase our domestic limits, we will argue most strongly against European colleagues for any increase in weight from 32·5 tonnes.
An increase in weight to the Commission's proposals may not cause undue bridge damage, provided we gained drive axle weight derogations, but it would cause extra road wear and tear and make the use of four-axle articulated and drawbar units more popular for international freight. We know the feelings that have been expressed in this House on previous occasions when the issue of weight increases for these vehicle types has been raised. The majority of vehicles used in international transport have five or six axles and are unaffected by the present proposals.
The existing directives—85/3 and 86/360—apply only to goods vehicles. The new proposed directives would apply also to passenger vehicles—buses and coaches. The maximum weight of a two-axled coach could therefore be 18 tonnes with 11·5 tonnes on its rear axle. In this country, we already allow a total weight of 17 tonnes on these vehicles, with a 10·5 tonne rear axle. With a derogation on drive axle weight, we could maintain the 10·5 tonne limit on the rear axle and effectively keep the total weight unchanged at 17 tonnes. When our bridges have been strengthened and we no longer need the derogation, the extra tonne of total weight will allow more passenger luggage to be carried, a move that would be welcomed by the operators and their clients.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Can the Minister tell us when the bridges are likely to be strengthened? What time scale are we talking about?

Mr. Bottomley: I do not see how it could be less than 15 years, and it could be significantly more than that.
The main benefit that we are seeking is to have a common market in road haulage. Our operators should be able to make journeys in the EC without a permit. Although these are separate issues, they are related and we must enter the Council of Ministers meeting on 20–21 June prepared and able to fight our corner. If we are not given


leave to do so by the House, then all we can do is to enter a scrutiny reserve and risk being outvoted. It is majority voting in the Council now, on key weight issues, and unless we are careful lorry weights could be pushed up still further. In the next few years we stand to reap substantial benefits in negotiations on road haulage and market access. This amending directive on lorry weights must not stand in the way of Britain's position on these issues, and that is why we should agree to it.
We still remain committed to the undertaking given in 1982 that there should be no increase in the maximum weight of the heaviest lorries until our bridges are suitably prepared and Parliament agrees. I again assure the House that I am making no such proposals now. We are achieving the beginning of a movement towards liberalisation of road haulage throughout the Community, and those elements of harmonisation to which we can agree will be of value to our exporting manufacturers. I hope that the House will approve the motion.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I found very unusual the Minister's charge that I am doing the work of his friends in Brussels. I have not had such a charge laid at my door before.
By facing both ways over the issue of maximum lorry weights, the Minister has caused confusion. The House should be aware that the task of strengthening bridges has been neglected over the past nine years by the Government and there is now a considerable backlog of repair, and that is causing concern about the condition of our bridges. I assure lion. Members that it will be some time before the Government can make any changes. However, it was important that the Minister added the rider "when Parliament allows" when he addressed the matter the second time. He did not say that the first time around. It was important that he made that correction.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I use the parliamentary condition as often as we can. If I left it out the first time, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to Parliament. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to suggest to our European partners that a Labour Government, if we had one, would get the bridges mended so rapidly that the derogation would fall and Parliament might have to face the issues sooner.

Mr. Lloyd: On that basis, I draw comfort from the fact that the derogation is indefinite. A Labour Government would have no truck with increasing the weight to 38 tonnes.
As there are very important issues in the draft directive that must be addressed, I shall consider those rather than the maximum axle weight, which is slightly off the track tonight. The Public Accounts Committee, in its report earlier this year on heavy goods vehicles, provided a considerable amount of statistics which had not been placed on the record before. For example, it showed that the cost of the maintenance of our road system because of the damage caused by heavy goods vehicles is about £600 million a year. The Committee was critical of the Department of Transport and called, among other things, for better information about all the adverse effects of heavy goods vehicles on our roads.
The Committee explained something that hon. Members may not have realised. It said that there are classes of heavy goods vehicles. I know the Minister will say that steps are being taken to amend that, but the track costs of some of those vehicles exceed by a considerable amount the amount raised in taxation. There is a clear subsidy from the public to road hauliers.
The most important issue that the House should consider is overloading. According to the Public Accounts Committee, overloading already costs the nation about £50 million a year. That money could go a considerable way towards the cost of strengthening bridges. It would not allow an increase to 40 tonnes, but it would provide an adequate bridge network. It would do away with those signs that we see in so many parts of the country saying that the bridge is unfit to take loads above a certain weight.
The House should realise that overloading is endemic in the road haulage industry. Department of Transport surveys show that between 7 and 22 per cent. of vehicles tested were found to be overloaded. The Public Accounts Committee felt that those figures were an underestimate. It felt that more than 22 per cent. of vehicles were overloaded, and it went on to say that overloading among foreign lorries was worse than among domestic lorries. However, only about 3 per cent. of foreign lorries are checked during their time in this country. The probability of being caught is very low.
A five or six-axle, 38-tonne lorry overloaded by a factor of up to 10 per cent. can provide a significant increase in its operator's annual profits, and the risk of detection—particularly with a foreign lorry—is so small as to be insignificant. The temptation to overload is very strong, and the Public Accounts Committee's conclusion was that the practice was one that the House should take closely to its heart.
The Minister spoke of increasing the weight limits of four-axle lorries with drawbars or articulated lorries from 32·5 tonnes to 36 tonnes. A 10 per cent. increase in that higher limit would take the weight to 39·6 tonnes—virtually the same as the 40-tonne limit that the road haulage industry and the EC are trying to impose. Also significant is the lack of weighbridges, which the Government will not provide at the ports even in the light of the debate on ferry safety. With that inability to weigh lorries entering the country, the problem falls on to the shoulders of the police. The Association of Chief Police Officers recommended that there should be no prosecution unless a lorry is laden to a factor of 10 per cent. above its permitted weight, so the directive is already moving towards the 40-tonne lorry on British roads.
Over many years the problem has been that both the domestic and international haulage industry have pressed for higher axle weights at every possible opportunity. Over the years the industry has adopted salami tactics, whereby the weight limits have been systematically increased, little by little.
The Commission's 1979 proposals have been upgraded and are now in this draft directive. For example, in 1979 the Commission proposed a 17-tonne limit for a two-axle rigid vehicle or tractor unit, but it is now 18 tonnes. The Commission's proposal for a 24-tonne limit on three-axle units—lower than that of the United Kingdom—has now been upgraded to exceed the United Kingdom limit, at 25 tonnes. In 1979, the Commission proposed a limit of 30 tonnes for a four-axle rigid vehicle, but it is now 32 tonnes. The Minister has already made the point that in 1979 the


Commission proposed a limit of 35 tonnes for an articulated or drawbar trailer combination, but it has now been increased to 36 tonnes.
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has already quoted the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, when the right hon. Lady was at the Department of Transport. On 25 November 1982 she said:
I shall now deal with weights, as many right hon. and hon. Members have dealt with them. There is no increase for the four-axle lorries, which would have increased road damage.
The Minister should take on board the fact that his predecessor was clear that raising the limit would increase road damage. The right hon. Lady continued:
In addition to the fact that there is no increase in the four-axle lorry weight, there is no increase in the drawbar trailer combinations. They are unusual on our roads, but they might have become more popular if the weight limit had been raised.
I refer again to the weight salami. The Minister has given assurances about international limits, but what will happen if the Community produces a draft directive next year suggesting that domestic limits throughout the EC should be increased? Is the Minister able to give a guarantee as to derogation, or will the majority voting system mean that Britain must accept what the Community says is good for us? As 1992 approaches, and as pressure increases for standardisation of both domestic and international trade, can the Minister guarantee that we will not be confronted with having to adopt the international limit on our roads? On a previous occasion the Freight Transport Association stated in Freight, its house magazine, that the 1984 directive, which came into effect on 1 July 1986, applied directly to international traffic. It added that it had quickly become the domestic minimum. That worries the FTA and many other organisations, especially in the light of the draft directive.
The Minister said that the present 32·5 tonne four-axle articulated vehicle or drawbar trailer combinations are relatively infrequent on British roads, and that is true. I think he said that three out of every thousand heavy goods vehicles on British roads came within those categories, but they represent 16·5 per cent. of heavy vehicle traffic on international routes. I believe that that figure has been quoted in Community documents.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: That was the finding of the Select Committee.

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that that figure was quoted by the Select Committee.
The capital cost of operating a lorry increases with the number of axles that are available. A four-axle lorry can be operated up to 36 tonnes, and the advantage of moving up to five or six axles for an extra 2 tonnes is not particularly great. However, 16·5 per cent. of heavy vehicle traffic on international routes comes within that category, and I suggest that we shall see a rapid increase in the number of these lorries on our roads, whether they are international traffic or, if my worst fears are realised, domestic traffic. What the Minister describes as a relatively minor problem may become a increasingly serious one as time passes.
The weight on the drive axle of a lorry is of great importance, but so is the average weight per axle. On 25

November 1982, the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), said:
I shall come to the issue of enforcement in a moment. It is the average axle loading that counts. On a 38 tonne five-axle lorry, it is 7·6 tonnes, compared with the 8·125 tonnes on the present 32·5 tonne four-axle lorry. It is 6·5 per cent. less and those are the internationally agreed figures.—[Official Report, 25 November 1982; Vol. 32, c. 1093–94.]
We are moving now to an average axle weight of 9 tonnes, which is a significant increase on the 1982 position. We are having forced upon us something that the Minister's predecessor said was unacceptable. Some six years on, the Minister tells us that the increase is a mere bagatelle and of no significance.
With the increased traffic on our roads, and with the threat of more and heavier lorries appearing on them, there is all the more reason to apply the logic that the right hon. Member for Wallasey set before us in 1982. It will be unacceptable in any circumstances to see the proposed four-axle articulated or drawbar trailer combinations on our roads that are laden to 36 tonnes, or up to the 39·6 tonnes that would keep them within the ACPO limit. Even worse will be the lorries that are significantly overloaded to 40 tonnes or more. The Minister must deal with that point if he is to carry with him even those of his hon. Friends who are sympathetic to his views.
The Minister asked—I go along with him on this—that the House should support the Government on derogation relating to the drive axle. It would be the height of irresponsibility in any circumstances to move from 10·5 to 11·5 tonnes, and it would be unacceptable for the Secretary of State to propose anything other than leaving the present system intact. If the Minister wants an assurance that the Opposition will support the Government on that one issue, he can have it.
Our position is simple. There is no case for any of the increases proposed by the Commission. They are an unwarranted interference in the United Kingdom's traffic conditions, and they will be of no advantage to Britain. The Minister talks about the potential for cabotage and the advantages that he expects to accrue to the British haulage industry, and I know from previous exchanges that that is the view that the Government wish to put forward. The Minister will be aware, however, that many people take a rather more pessimistic view of the future of road haulage, for all kinds of reasons, but among others the degree of subsidy accruing to foreign operators. Domestic operators will face very unequal competition once cabotage comes into force.
It is of no advantage to this country for us to fall meekly into line with Community proposals. That applies not only to the drive axle but—this is important—to the maximum weights permissible on the different axled lorries that will come on to the roads.
For some time now an important debate has been taking place on the environmental consequences of heavy vehicles on our roads. I note that the Freight Transport Association, in its submission to selected Members of Parliament, expressed the view that implementation of the Community's proposals would have no adverse effects on the environment, and would have only a marginal effect on roads and bridges. The Minister knows that that is not the case. The proposals could have quite a serious impact, particularly on bridges. He has already explained the necessity to guarantee that the present axle weights are maintained in order to protect our bridges, many of which


would be very vulnerable if the proposals were adopted. Because of the paucity of information, which was mentioned by the Public Accounts Committee, it would be an extremely foolish Minister—or an extremely foolish Eurocrat—who would predict that our bridges would he able to take the increased weights of overloaded 36-tonne vehicles.
The Freight Transport Association has an interest to uphold—the interest of those who would benefit from the increased haulage capacities—but for it to say that there would be no adverse effects on the environment is nonsensical. Everyone recognises—even the Community, although it draws a different analysis from mine—the environmental impact of an increase in maximum weights. That is inevitable. It is also inevitable that the damage to roads and bridges will be increased, and the effect is not likely to be marginal, unless the Minister can tell us what new steps he intends to take to guarantee, not only that lorries will be checked, but that there will he powers to ensure that overloaded vehicles become a thing of the past.
The Minister knows that he is not in a position to do that. We do not have the weighbridges, the Department of Transport staff or the necessary will power from the present Government. They have often been asked in the past few years to institute checks, and more recently they have been asked to do that in connection with the overloading of ferries. It is only with reluctance that steps are being taken now, and we are told that it is impossible to check foreign lorries on that basis. Checking foreign lorries as they arrived in Britain would be a way of preventing their being overloaded when they reached other destinations. The mechanisms exist, if the Government are prepared to put them into practice, but without weighbridges, Department of Transport inspectors and the political will, nothing will change.
It is important for the House to take on board one simple fact. The draft directive has almost no relevance to safety or to traffic conditions on the roads of Great Britain. The Eurocrats' proposals may make sense in other countries, but that is for them to decide. There is an overwhelming case that Britain's needs are special, and the Minister's case was that our needs are special. We need derogation.
It would also be better if the Commission were to say that the directive has nothing to do with Britain and that it would be preposterous for the Commission to interfere with weight limits on British roads, where the conditions that apply elsewhere do not apply. The draft directive ought to be buried. That would make sense in terms of the Minister's position and that which I have outlined to the House.

Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend the Minister has a tremendous track record in seeking to promote safety on our roads. The hour is late, but it would be quite wrong if I did not take this opportunity again to place on record the concern of my constituents over conditions on the roads in Kent and ask my hon. Friend to ensure that the weights and sizes of lorries on our roads do not increase.
My hon. Friend will know that I am particularly grateful to his hon. Friend the Minister of State for the improvements that are being effected, particularly on the Thanet way. It will make a tremendous difference to my

constituents. I hope that I shall not offend my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), in whose constituency the port of Ramsgate is located, when I say that we are looking forward to the announcement of a relief road for Ramsgate harbour.
The condition of the roads in the gateway county of Kent is unsatisfactory. Lorries use roads that were not constructed for the sizes of vehicles that they are now compelled to carry. The villages of north Thanet suffer daily from the pounding of juggernauts that often use minor roads as rat runs instead of the major roads. The damage done by heavy lorries to the roads of Kent is costly and considerable. The ports of Dover, Folkestone and Ramsgate benefit considerably from the traffic that is generated by the freight haulage industry. We do not suggest that it is unwelcome, but there is a limit to what our roads can take. We have to balance the cost benefit of the freight that the ferries carry against the negative cost of the damage done to our roads and to buildings in our villages.
I know that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about safety—a subject that has not been mentioned tonight. He knows that in the past two weeks there have been no fewer than three major accidents involving lorries on the roads of Kent. In my constituency, sadly, only a couple of weeks ago three people were killed when a foreign lorry driver veered off the road. I have to be careful about what I say because the case is sub judice, but there is reason to believe that the driver may have been asleep. The road in question was unsuitable for that size of vehicle, with the result that three people are now dead.
Anybody who has driven down the A20, particularly along the Canterbury bypass towards the ports of Dover and Ramsgate, knows only too well of the horror, particularly in wet weather, of being overtaken—very often on the inside—by a foreign juggernaut. The people of Kent have had enough. We do not wish to deter business. We are concerned that, even when the tunnel is built, drivers who would normally rest on the ferries will not do so. Therefore, far from an improvement, we may find that some of our roads will become still more dangerous.
I do not wish to take up any more of the House's time. I have made my point. In conclusion, on behalf of my constituents—and, I fondly believe, on behalf of all the people in the county of Kent—I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, with every ounce of strength at his disposal, to resist any further increase in the sizes and weights of the lorries on our roads.

Mr. Frank Haynes: First, I agree with some of the things that the Minister has said this morning, but at the same time I disagree with him. If he is going to fight on behalf of the people of this country about the heavy vehicles on our roads, I will support him. In fact, I will go with him. Never mind supporting him over here, I will go with him and carry his briefcase for him.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that after all the performance that we have had tonight and after all his references to the people on the Tory Front Bench, he would go with a Tory on a fact-finding tour of the Common Market?

Mr. Haynes: I have to let the House into a little secret. A few months ago I went to New York, and the Minister's wife was with the group. She is an hon. Member and she told me some nice things about him. She said she thought what a good Minister he was and what a good job he was doing. I listened to her and took it all in. If she is to be believed, and after some of his remarks tonight, I am prepared to support him in the things that he is fighting for across the water.

Mr. Skinner: Rather than his wife?

Mr. Haynes: I do not want to fight his wife. I want to fight for the people in my constituency.
Before my hon. Friend interrupted me, I was going to say that I have had regular representations from the Nottinghamshire county council about its roads. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I have had representations from the Derbyshire county council, because many of the vehicles that come through Derbyshire come into Nottinghamshire. I have had representations from the chairman of the highways committee of Nottinghamshire county council, Councillor Keith Williams—a wonderful worker on behalf of the people in Nottinghamshire in regard to roads and transport.
I am concerned about the state of the roads in Nottinghamshire, and, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, in Derbyshire, too.

Mr. Skinner: It is very important that the House should understand that my hon. Friend is talking about a coalmining area. One of the problems that we face in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and similar areas in the coalfields is not only the very heavy vehicles, which have been increased in weight as a result of our being in the Common Market, but subsidence. Will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the Minister the fact that special attention should be paid to those areas afflicted by subsidence, because the many beautiful bridges in that area will suffer even more than those in Kent which have been mentioned already?

Mr. Haynes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point about mining subsidence. I am not wandering into mining subsidence; I am just making a point. It is a major issue, and it goes with the problems that are being created by massive vehicles moving along our roads when they come off the motorway.
I have noticed the sort of vehicles that British Coal now buys. They are not always British Leyland; they are foreign vehicles from across the water—from Europe. The amount of damage that those massive vehicles are causing is amazing. I should have thought that the Minister would keep a close eye on them. They are doing a lot of damage in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) mentioned overloading. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to this serious matter. My hon. Friend made it clear that the Government are not doing enough about the problem. I have had representations about work not being done to ease the problem in my county. However, I have a suggestion about how to overcome it. The Minister must first persuade the Treasury to provide the money.
There are intersections on the M1. I travel up and down that motorway every week.

Mr. Skinner: I have been with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Haynes: My hon. Friend is correct: he has travelled with me on many occasions. He would agree that I am a safe driver. The heavy lorries, with their maniac drivers, are frightening. They travel very fast, often dragging trailers behind them——

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Rowntree's lorries?

Mr. Haynes: I got into trouble when I brought up Rowntree a few weeks ago.
These damn lorries travel like hell up the motorway. Some of them are overloaded, because they are not being weighed to see whether they are. They travel so fast that they frighten drivers like me to death. They sway when they switch lanes. I disagree with the Minister about buses and coaches. He is agreeing to extra weight for them. When the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was in the Department of Transport, she said that she would take action against speeding bus drivers because of the huge numbers of accidents that had occurred. But the problem continues. If we add weight to fast-travelling buses, we can imagine the results. There will be messy accidents. Even though the Minister is tired—he is yawning—I hope that he is listening, because this is a serious problem.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the number of speeding coaches has halved since I have been the Under-Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Haynes: I do not believe the Minister. I travel on the M1 every week-150 miles up and 150 miles down. Those heavy vehicles are passing me when I am doing 70 mph. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will confirm that I stick to the speed limit, because he has travelled with me many times. Heavy lorries, buses and coaches are still a danger on our roads. It is about time that the Minister woke up and did something about it. The Minister said that the figure had halved, but I do not think that he travels on the M1 enough to know.

Mr. Skinner: Since the Minister started his job there have been cones up and down the motorways. My guess is that, as a result, the traffic has been slowed down so much that it is possible that there has been a reduction.

Mr. Haynes: My hon. Friend must remember—if he does not, I shall remind him—that police accident reports state that vehicles have ploughed through the cones and hit vehicles coming in the other direction. The Minister says that the problem has halved, but I still do not believe him. Accidents are still taking place. He should do a bit more travelling on the M1. I cannot speak for the other motorways because only the M1 goes through my county.

Mr. Skinner: The Government could have fiddled those figures on the same computer as they use for the dole figures.

Mr. Haynes: I never thought of that, but I do not think that I shall wander on to social security matters, although I am tempted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we will return to the weights and dimensions of commercial vehicles.

Mr. Haynes: I am speaking about the weights of lorries. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is trying to


direct me away from them, but I am not having it. I said that I would not wander on to social security, although it is tempting.
The Minister is responsible for transport. I should have thought that he would have had many talks with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about opening more rail lines so that we can overcome this problem. All the goods carried by heavy lorries should be carried by rail. I know that Beeching did an axing job, but we are in a different ball game now because we shall have the Channel tunnel. There is a need for a proper rail service from Mansfield to Nottingham. The Minister should take some action on this, because it would take heavy loads from lorries and put them on the railways.

Mr. Skinner: There is a serious argument for the electrification of the midland line.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us return to the weights and dimensions of commercial vehicles.

Mr. Skinner: We are talking about increasing the axle weights of heavy lorries from 32·5 tonnes in 1983 to 38 tonnes. If we spent more money on railways, we would not be talking about 38-tonne lorries. If we electrified the midland line in accordance with the early-day motion standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, we would make some progress. The Minister has responsibility for railways as well as roads.

Mr. Haynes: That fits in with the motion that we are discussing. We are talking about taking heavy loads off the roads and putting them on the railways, where they should be. I hope the Minister is taking note of my remarks and is not sitting on the Government Front Bench taking no notice and looking gormless. [Interruption.] I seek your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) comment on what I am saying, but I am unable to reply because he is outside the Chamber, beyond the Bar.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the EC document that is before the House.

Mr. Haynes: I come to the question of the bridges which must be repaired because of the strain being placed on them. They are being smashed to smithereens. I recall my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) bringing before Parliament the difficulties that occured with spaghetti junction. The Government denied there was anything wrong, but in the end they had to spend millions of pounds putting things right.

Mr. Skinner: The fiddle.

Mr. Haynes: Yes. A right old fiddle had been going on because it had been done in a cheap way without using the proper materials. Likewise, our bridges are being destroyed. We will not see Whitehall officials or the Minister mixing concrete and doing the repairs. The lads in the counties and the local transport departments will have to do it.

Mr. Skinner: What about the sewers?

Mr. Haynes: Yes; somebody will have to accept responsibility for repairing the sewers, too. What Government grant will be available for repairing the sewers and the bridges? The Government have cut

drastically the money that should be spent on repairing the roads. The roads in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire are getting smashed to hell and the counties do not have enough money to carry out the proper maintenance work. The roads near my home are full of potholes. We never had such problems under Labour rule.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a long way from the subject matter of the document that is before the House. We are talking about the weights and dimensions of commercial vehicles.

Mr. Haynes: Exactly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am referring to the commercial vehicles that are damaging our roads because they are too large and overweight. It is happening in Doncaster as well—in your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker—so you have some responsibility in the matter. I am speaking on your behalf as well as on behalf of my constituents and those of all hon. Members. I am a little surprised, therefore, that you accuse me of drifting from the subject. I am drifting, but I am drifting through Derbyshire into Yorkshire and beyond to Jarrow —all the way up the M1.
The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) spoke about the problems of Kent.

Mr. Skinner: A Tory-controlled area.

Mr. Haynes: Yes; and Kent has not suffered the sort of financial cuts that have occurred in my area and elsewhere. There is plenty of money in Kent, yet the roads there are bad. When I was towing a caravan in Kent I had an axle broken. So it is not just in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and your county of Yorkshire, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in Kent as well that the roads are affected. It is happening all over the damn place and it is high time the Minister put his foot down and did something about it. He should challenge the Treasury to give him extra money to put things right. We owe a debt to the people in the community and we should give them proper and safe roads. At the same time the Department of Transport should do something about the lorries that are too large and are carrying too much weight. It is the Minister's responsibility to do something about it.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has dealt with subsidence and with the effect on bridges and sewers of these 38-tonners with heavy axles. He has also dealt with the speed of the lorries. There is one point that he has not mentioned. Like me, my hon. Friend rides a bike. These long articulated lorries come sailing past. They are frightening, because we never know when they will finish. At one time we knew when the back end of an ordinary British lorry would pass us. Now, with the 38-tonner, we are waiting for the end of it to pass us and, with the draught, it feels as though we are in a vacuum. That is another reason why we should vote against the motion.

Mr. Haynes: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I have watched the Minister on television and listened to him on the radio. He is always bragging about what. the Department of Transport is doing for the roads. I wish he would come and look at our roads to see what they are like because of the damage done by these damn great, overweight vehicles. Yet we are being pressurised to take more and more heavy vehicles. That is why I said at the


beginning that I am prepared to support the Minister in opposing what the people on the other side of the water in Europe want us to accept.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend understands the Common Market and knows what the game is about. The Minister, in answer to a question, said that they have got majority voting on these issues in the Common Market. With majority voting we have not got a cat in hell's chance. If they want to increase axle weight and go from 38 tonnes upwards, they will do it, because West Germany is the top dog in the Common Market. It has got about 540 billion surplus in its balance of payments. We have a massive deficit. The West Germans will call the tune.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be both brief and relevant. That was neither.

Mr. Skinner: It will be if they finish up in Doncaster.

Mr. Haynes: My hon. Friend has made a good point. He was right to drag in Doncaster. Two of my hon. Friends are from Doncaster and they complain about the roads and the heavy lorries. It is high time that the Minister pulled the stoppers out and got something done about them. He spends too much time in front of the television cameras instead of being out on the job. It would be a good idea if I went with him to give some assistance and to keep him on the job, but he would not want me with him in front of the cameras.

Mr. Skinner: Not unless my hon. Friend wore a top hat.

Mr. Haynes: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's wife would be pleased if I appeared on television with him. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seriously consider his statement. I did not mean what I said about carrying the Minister's briefcase. I was joking.
I hope that he will take note of everything that has been said, especially by the Public Accounts Committee. The PAC's recommendations on roads and transport are sensible. The Minister appears not to be listening to the Committee. There are a number of Labour Members on the Committee. I hope that the Minister will listen seriously to the PAC's views on roads and transport generally. If the Minister did that, he would press the Treasury to make additional funds available, and I am sure that the PAC would back him. The PAC overlooks departmental spending——

Mr. Skinner: It is in this document.

Mr. Haynes: That is right; I have seen it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must address himself to the issue before the House, the weights and dimensions of commercial vehicles and the draft directive.

Mr. Haynes: The PAC has had a go at the Minister about the roads damaged by vehicles. I support the Committee, but the hon. Gentleman takes no notice of it. If he did, he would make representations to the Treasury for additional finance to overcome the problems. I said that I support what the Minister is trying to do with respect to European legislation—telling the European Council what to do. The European Council has no right to tell us what to do.
I remember the right hon. Gentleman who sat at the end of one of the Back Benches——

Mr. Skinner: Enoch Powell.

Mr. Haynes: Yes. He said that the European Council would take away our rights and sovereignty, and it has done just that. There is more coming. It is high time that the Minister said, "Stop. We will decide here, in the United Kingdom. We do not need you, in Europe, to tell us what to do. We will decide for ourselves." This is the mother of Parliaments. Members of Parliament collectively will decide the kind of transport that should be on our roads.
The Minister should work hard to improve rail services. The heavy lorries should be taken off the roads and the passengers and goods should go by rail. We should take off the road the buses that the Government have encouraged. The roads are overloaded with the damn things.

Mr. Skinner: And check the lorries.

Mr. Haynes: And check the lorries. I shall not take up that point. I shall sit down.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has made such a comprehensive speech that there is not a great deal left to say, but I want to put a few points on the record. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister appreciates that the opposition to the order comes not just from a few nuts who might be thinking about the interests of those across the Channel.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Just in case people read the report of the debate later, will my hon. Friend make it clear that he is talking about opposition to the draft directive rather than to the motion? I suspect that Members on both sides of the House would want to support the motion.

Mr. Taylor: The motion makes a minor proposal about the directive. We are concerned with the directive. The basic point in the directive is on increased weight. The Association of Metropolitan Authorties, a substantial organisation representing the major conurbations in the London boroughs, issued a statement today in which it said:
The association believes there can be no justification for accepting the proposed increases in lorry weights now being proposed by the Commission, having regard to the information provided to Parliament in 1982 and the numerous subsequent undertakings given to Parliament by the Transport Secretaries of State and Ministers in the intervening six years. The Association believes that the provisions of the draft directive to amend directive 85 of the EEC are not appropriate.
We are discussing, albeit at a very late hour, a matter of significance.
We have had assurances in the past, and we are now being given further assurances, but the sad fact is that the assurances that we have had in the past have tended to fade away. Every time we give more power and authority to the EEC and allow lorries of greater weight, we find that previous assurances disappear. I remind the Minister of our debate on 18 December 1984, when we were given splendid assurances. We were told that there was no question of allowing heavier lorries on our roads. Now the proposal is that we should. The directive also said that the derogation was of indefinite duration. Now we are told


that it is not of indefinite duration, but had something to do with accommodating changes in our bridges and roads. Finally we were told:
The directive makes it clear that any future decision on this subject"—
on lorry weights—
can only be taken by a unanimous vote; thus our position in Europe on lorry weights is actually strengthened."— [Official Report, 18 December 1984; Vol. 70, c. 250.]
The proposed directive, on the other hand, is to be decided by majority vote.
I am also worried because the Minister said that the number of lorries of the weights that are being increased quite substantially—by several tonnes—on our roads is limited. I ask him to consider what the Government said last time round. Speaking for the Department of Transport was that delightful lady who is now the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. She explained her opposition to increasing the 32·5 tonne limit by saying that such a move would make the lorries more popular on our roads. She said that they were unusual on our roads but might become more popular if the weight limit had increased.
We had assurances on all those issues. Frankly, it seems that we are wasting our time in trying to get more assurances. It is now proposed to throw aside all the assurances, to increase the weight and to go ahead from 32·5 to 36 tonnes.
Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will give us assurance on one point. Even if we increase the weights of lorries further, which will cause much concern to the community,] hope that we can at least do something about the terrible problem of overloading. The Minister must know that checks done in Kent in 1987 showed that 12·5 per cent. of foreign vehicles stopped in random batches were overloaded. That is substantial percentage. Current fines seem to have little impact on overloading, and resources for checking are unbelievably limited. The Minister will he aware that pre-weighing facilities are not available at a number of ports. If we are obliged by majority vote—or perhaps the Government will agree with the directive—to go ahead with increased lorry size, the very least that we want to know is that when a lorry comes to this country in a boat it will be weighed to establish that it is not overloaded. We are talking not just about convenience on the roads or about the problems of cars that are pushed out because there are too many lorries; we are talking about people's lives and about safety. We are talking about the dangers involved. We are discussing very serious issues.
I have no personal animosity against the Minister, but he must know that we get repeated assurances late at night —at 2 am or 3 am—on Common Market issues but we may as well forget it the next time they come round. We were told that we would get control of the budget if only we agreed to extra cash at the time of Fontainebleau. Now, to get round that, they have told us that it was a 10-month year last year. We have been told time and again that the CAP will be reformed if only we give a bit more money and a bit more power. We know exactly what is happening: spending is at an all-time high and reform is just a joke.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in matters affecting the Common Market. Has he noted that one of the ways in which the Common Market is to try to find the necessary money—now that it has gone bankrupt for about the third time in the past five years

—to pay for the bureaucracy that spews out documents such as the one before us is with a £5,000 million loan, £900 million of which is to come from British taxpayers? As the hon. Gentleman knows, it sticks in the gullet for us to be pouring out much-needed money that should be going to the recipients of social security, the National Health Service and pensioners in Britain.

Mr. Taylor: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about the intergovernmental agreement to provide an extra £5 billion. I could give him four quotations from Ministers assuring me that intergovernmental agreements would never happen again.
No one is listening to the debate at this late hour, and, sad to say, no one will bother. I hope that the Minister will agree that all the assurances that have been given in the past—"If only we give a bit more"—have fallen apart. He should be aware of the serious danger posed by heavy lorries on our roads and by consistent overloading. I appeal to him at least to say—this is a minor demand—that he will oppose increases in lorry size.
In the past, the Government could have stopped such proposals simply by saying no. But now, with majority voting, the British voice does not matter much because it will be overturned. I hope that the Minister will at least make the point about the dangers of increased lorry size and that he will vote against it, even though Parliament and the Government cannot control it. Let him at least make a stand to show that something important is al stake. He must stand firm and oppose the ridiculous increase from 32·5 to 36 tonnes. especially in view of what previous Transport Ministers have repeatedly said on the issue.
I hope that the Minister will assure me that weighing facilities will be provided at ports which do not have them at present. There is little point in our passing laws if they can be disregarded because of overloading. There is a serious danger here, and we have a duty to the travelling public to do something about it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Although the hour is late, this matter is of great importance and must be considered carefully by the House.
The Minister can give as many assurances to the House as he likes, but they are meaningless because they can be overruled in Europe. The document that we are discussing is another example of the EEC overruling the sovereignty of the House. Many of us saw it coming. As a Member of the European Parliament, I witness such occurrences daily. There is a tendency now to forget the solemn assurances that were given to the British people. When we held a referendum on joining the Common Market, the pro-Marketeers' argument was that there would always have to be a unanimous vote in the Council of Ministers. That was a con trick to get the people of these islands to vote yes. After they had voted, the position was clanged; and we do not know what other changes will take place.
We are privileged to have on the Front Bench the Minister responsible for roads in Northern Ireland. I take this opportunity to emphasise the awful condition of the roads in Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) can testify. The roads to the ferry ports in Northern Ireland carry large vehicles from the Irish Republic. Most of them are overloaded, but they are not tested or weighed.

Mr. Roy Beggs: The Minister should consider that point. At Lame harbour, in my constituency, there are occasional spot checks on Sundays to detect overloaded vehicles. But, because of the ease with which drivers communicate, they can direct their colleagues to stay clear of Lame harbour for an hour or two or to use another harbour. When the boys move on, it becomes a free road. There must be proper weighing facilities at every port in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is interesting to note the deterioration in the road structure in Northern Ireland as a result of those heavy vehicles. At present, the roads in Northern Ireland are disgraceful. There are not only potholes, but large crevices in the roads of Northern Ireland and they are deteriorating even more.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that he does not like the directive, just as we do not like it, but, as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, the Minister must make known his opposition by voting against the directive. Even if he cannot change it, he must at least put a marker against that deterioration and the forces of the Common Market overruling the wishes of the people of this country. The tragedy is that the battle on this issue is lost simply because of the voting system whereby the strongest possible representations made in good faith by the Minister can be wiped out. Those matters must concern everyone.
The Minister responsible for such matters in Northern Ireland can confirm that the number of deaths on the roads of Northern Ireland is far greater than the number of deaths from terrorism. Those heavy vehicles are adding to the number of victims killed on our roads. The Minister is not responsible for the roads in Northern Ireland—I am sure that he thanks God that he is not—so we shall have to leave it to the hon. Irish earl at the end of the Front Bench to take responsibility for them. I am sure that the Minister is interested in the fact that vehicles from the Irish Republic help to damage our roads. Perhaps he will undertake to ensure that those vehicles will be weighed to check that they are not overloaded.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can it really be in order that, while the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was speaking for 10 minutes, there was a Tory asleep at his feet?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that the battle is lost, but I do not believe that it is lost. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) invited me to his constituency. I went there to a battle that was supposed to be lost, and the Conservatives won the by-election.

Mr. Haynes: The Minister is talking about a by-election in 1977. I won it back.

Mr. Bottomley: I think that the House has noticed that, especially when the hon. Gentleman speaks quietly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) talked about the importance of getting the weight right. I draw the House's attention to the motion, especially the second part of it. The Government are asking the House to support them in obtaining arrangements that allow us to keep axle spacings and weights within the current United Kingdom limits to

safeguard bridges in this country. In my opening remarks, I spelt out how, for those two, three and four-axle rigid vehicles, if we keep the 10·5-tonne drive axle, we shall just about keep the weights that we want. That is the point upon which the House should focus tonight. That is why we are considering this matter before the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 20–21 June.
This House does matter. A united voice from the House helps. I sometimes wish that those who have different views about the Common Market would realise that, if we use the House to back our corner of the Common Market, so that we can send in Ministers with united support rather than saying that the battle is lost, we can do as well in our negotiations in Europe as we have done during the past seven years in our trade and economy improvements which have made it possible for us to increase our spending on roads.
The hon. Member for Ashfield raised the question of county council and highway authority spending. There was £700 million available last year which was not spent on road maintenance. If it had been spent on road maintenance, that would have helped.
Safety was also mentioned. It is worth remembering that there have been fewer vehicles since the change announced during the previous major debate. Although each time a heavier vehicle is involved in a crash the consequences are greater, because of the reduced number of vehicles there are fewer casualties. The casualty rate dropped by 10 per cent. last year. That kind of drop is greatly to be welcomed. I pay tribute to the many members of my union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, who drive coaches and lorries and congratulate them on their improved performance.
Like the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), I believe in using the railways as often as possible, but it is not kind to say that all the people who earn their living by driving our citizens around in coaches and buses should lose their jobs. Consumers need a proper choice.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: They have no choice.

Mr. Bottomley: They must have a choice if twice as many people use the coaches now that we have deregulated them. The use of trains is also increasing.

Mr. Skinner: The Minister is talking about people losing jobs if the lorry and axle weights are lower. According to the Public Accounts Committee report, published in February this year, in the period since the heavy lorries were introduced the number of lorries on the road has dropped from about 600,000 to 435,000. If there are smaller lorries there must be more people in work.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. gentleman is trying to have it both ways, and because of the time he will probably succeed.
The lorry-checking programme is growing. The numbers and use of weighbridges are increasing. We need to have greater help from the magistrates. If we calculate the value of overloading by about 10 per cent. throughout the year and compare that with the fines that the magistrates courts impose, they are not necessarily the greatest deterrents in the world——

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6511/88 on the weight limit for two axle rigid vehicles and the un-numbered explanatory memorandum dated 24th May 1988, submitted by the Department of Transport, describing a draft Directive amending Directive 85/3/EEC on the weights, dimensions and certain other technical characteristics of certain road vehicles; and endorses the Government's objective of securing Community arrangements which would make it possible to keep axle spacings and axle weights within current United Kingdom limits in order to safeguard bridges in the United Kingdom.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

COMPANIES

That the Companies (Fees) Regulations 1988, dated 13th May 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must have missed something. I did not hear the motion entitled "Roadworthiness Testing" called.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It was not moved.

Carrickfergus and Smiley Hospitals

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Mr. Roy Beggs: It is now just over 13 hours since I came to the Chamber. It has been a long wait to be 13 hours early after having been a few seconds late before.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposed closure of the Carrickfergus and Smiley hospitals, in my constituency, and the implications flowing from that.
In answer to recent questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I have been informed that the highest concentration of heavy industry in Northern Ireland outside Belfast is in the constituency of Antrim, East, which I am privileged to represent in this House.
Antrim, East has the highest total number of employees in energy and water supplies industries, extraction of minerals and ores, manufacture of metals, mineral products and chemicals, metal goods, engineering and vehicle industries and construction industries of any constituency outside Belfast.
In 1987 approximately 5,500 ships handled imports and exports through the port facilities at Magheramorne, Carrickfergus, Ballylumford and Lame, involving well over 5 million tonnes of cargo. In 1987, there were 5,107 ship visits to Larne harbour, with a total of 1,459,737 passengers and 614,506 vehicles, of which 308,746 were commercial and 305,760 were cars and caravans. There is no record available of the number of vehicles or persons leaving or meeting passengers at Larne harbour.
That information may serve to indicate the reason why there is total opposition by elected representatives and the community as a whole to the northern health board's proposal to build a new area hospital in Antrim, to provide acute services which are already available at Moyle hospital in Larne, backed by the facilities at the Smiley and Carrickfergus hospitals. If those proposals proceed, my constituents will be required to travel 24 miles from Larne, 35 miles from Carrickfergus, 40 miles via Lame from Carnlough, and 37 miles from Islandmagee to Antrim for acute hospital services that are already available and accessible. People in Great Britain do not expect to put up with such inconvenience or to be treated in that way. Is it any wonder that we are saying, "No thank you" to the proposals?
Roman Catholic, Protestant and dissenter alike are saying yes to equality of provision of acute hospital services for the consumers served by the Northern health board. Decisions on future hospital provision and planned closures have been taken by an undemocratic quango. The majority of health board members are accountable to no one—but many are place seekers appointed by a Minister to bulldoze through the decisions of the DHSS. Consultation is meaningless if those who make and take decisions will not listen to reasonable argument and amend policy that is unacceptable except to those in the immediate catchment areas of Antrim and Ballymoney/Coleraine.
In a report in the Ballymena Guardian on 28 April, when asked if the present campaign to try to secure a rethink of the whole strategy will make him change his mind, the Minister replied no. Asked also whether he


would change his mind if campaigners succeeded in convincing board members to vote in favour of a rethink, the Minister again replied with a firm no.
Ulster Unionists are constantly accused of saying no, but when a Minister answers no to such questions, that is arrogant and contemptuous of the beliefs of intellectuals, members of the medical profession, experts from outside the health board, and my constituents, who reject what is being forced upon them.
General practitioners in east Antrim almost unanimously reject the proposals for Moyle, Smiley and Carrickfergus hospitals. Is the Minister prepared to ignore those experts on community care, or will he reconsider the ability of Moyle and associated hospitals to provide adequate acute services in east Antrim? The present proposals will never be acceptable in my constituency, and I predict that no elected Northern Ireland forum will fully implement them if responsibility is transferred in the next five years to a democratically elected body there. The Minister may proceed with phase 1 at Antrim, but when the right to take decisions is restored to elected representatives in Northern Ireland there will be no phases 2 and 3.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a disgrace that within the area covered by the Northern health board there is to be one acute hospital at Coleraine and a heart hospital at Antrim? Only the heart hospital is provided for. Yet in every other area there are more than two acute hospitals, and in many of those areas there is a smaller population. The vast majority of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and of mine will not be given the equality of service that is available in every other area in Northern Ireland. Does he agree with me that this is an example of deliberate discrimination against both Protestants and Roman Catholics in our constituencies? Hospitals are being closed and services are being removed, such as the heart unit at the Ballymena hospital which was made available through the donations of the people. That unit is to be taken away and the people will be robbed of something for which they paid.

Mr. Beggs: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I concur with the arguments that he has advanced.
I believe that the Minister is unintentionally misleading when he proclaims that a large high-technology hospital is a necessity for the area. The Antrim hospital will not provide regional specialties under phase 1. Patients will continue to receive these services in the large Belfast teaching hospitals. Professor James McCormick estimates that about 10 per cent. of all ill health requires hospitalisation and that 90 per cent. of all hospital patients can be treated successfully in smaller hospitals. It is reasonable to conclude that only 1 to 2 per cent. of all illness requires the high technology that is already provided in Belfast hospitals. It is widely accepted that patients requiring treatment beyond the capability of their local hospital would request transfer to one or other of the Belfast hospitals rather than to an area hospital at Antrim and would be so transferred.
The proposed Antrim hospital will not provide anything which the existing hospitals, including Carrickfergus, Smiley and Lame, cannot provide. The

consultancy skills to be available at Antrim will be the skills of consultants transferred from the existing small hospitals.
It makes no sense to twin phase 1 of the Antrim hospital with the old Masserene hospital at Antrim. It is miles away on a different site where no acute hospital services have been provided for years. In fact, I am deeply disturbed that the logical arguments put forward by Moyle action committee and the Federation of Action Committees have not been given the consideration that they deserve. The alternative plan to the existing proposals would give a fair and equitable provision of acute services to everyone involved. This is the main reason why the action committees have widespread support.
Most districts of Northern Ireland are within 15 miles of acute services. At present, people living in the Antrim district are only 17 miles, of which 14 miles are motorway, from the main Belfast hospitals. Removing acute services from Moyle in Lame would require many of my constituents to travel twice that distance—about 37 miles, of which only a few miles are motorway—along roads that are restricted to single-lane traffic by constant vehicle movement to and from Larne harbour.
The proposed Antrim hospital puts the whole of east Antrim outside the 15-mile norm for access to acute services. My constituents will suffer most from a gross reduction of hospital services for the most heavily industrialised constituency outside Belfast with the second largest port in Northern Ireland. Is this progress that is being proposed, or is it madness?
We do not object to equal provision of services for the needs of people in Antrim, but it must not be at the price of reduced services in east Antrim, where the hospital needs of everyone are now met. I challenge the Minister tonight to spell out what is to be gained by providing phase 1, with 300 beds at Antrim. The existing consultants are to be transferred there. The existing equipment and facilities are adequate to meet the needs, and nothing additional by way of services available at present is to be provided.
The scheme for the Northern health board area which the Minister inherited from his predecessors at the Department of Health and Social Services is a waste of public money. The Minister should arrange an independent appraisal. I ask him to invite the Select Committee dealing with health matters to visit Northern Ireland and carry out an appraisal of the existing provision, to invite consideration of the alternative put forward by the Federation of Action Groups and even perhaps to invite the Public Accounts Committee, with its expertise, to help by carrying out an appraisal of the expenditure proposed in the Antrim complex, rather than an inquest after irreparable damage has been done to hospital services in my area.
Let me quote briefly from the report of the Royal Commission that examined the National Health Service in 1979:
Acute hospital services are generally excellent, most of them provided by peripheral teaching hospitals, often in old buildings, ungenerously staffed…It should not be assumed that because a building is old it is unsatisfactory—the UK is not so wealthy that it can afford to scrap perfectly usable hospitals merely because they are old".
That was nearly 10 years ago. Moyle, Smiley, Carrickfergus and many other small hospitals have been upgraded, adapted and extended, and adequately serve the needs of the Northern health board. They would get glowing reports today from a Royal Commission. Some


£3·5 million has been spent on the Moyle and Waveney, £4·4 million will be spent on Whiteabbey and Mid-Ulster, and then they will be downgraded if the proposals for Antrim are fully implemented. Some £40 million will be spent on phase 1 at Antrim, unwanted by the majority of those in the area that is to he affected. Much less expenditure—about £25 million, we believe—could fully repair and modernise hospitals at Waveney, Moyle, Mid-Ulster and Whiteabbey.
The proposal to amalgamate Ballymoney and Coleraine on a new green field site seems reasonable for that area, but the proposed downgrading of all hospitals in my constituency, including the closure of Smiley, an essential part of the Moyle complex and Carrickfergus, is unreasonable.
Constituents ask whether the Government and Northern Ireland Office Ministers really care. I hope that the Minister will show tonight that he cares by indicating his willingness to look at representation beyond the ministerial brief offered by officials who have got it partly wrong this time. Two acute hospitals, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has already pointed out—an incomplete hospital at Antrim and another at Coleraine—will not be able to provide acute services for the whole Northern board area. Can the Minister assure us that the Eastern health board will provide acute services in the Belfast hospitals for 90,000 people and that the Southern health board will provide them for 20,000 from the Northern health board at the South Tyrone hospital in Dungannon? If the Eastern and Southern boards cannot provide for those 110,000 people, the concept of two acute hospitals is undermined and the alternative hospital proposals are more realistic.
The Moyle action group and others active in the Federation of Action Groups have still to be convinced that their proposals do not stand up to any reasonable scrutiny. They have commissioned a report by a highly respected former employee of Coopers and Lybrand. Will the Minister promise to examine the report carefully—it should be with him in a very short time, if it is not already —and take a new look at the suggestions put forward by the action groups on behalf of the people of my constituency before committing himself publicly to a full-blown phase 1, 2 and 3 hospital at Antrim?
The new career structures for junior doctors that are under consideration should provide adequate staffing for the smaller hospitals. The main teaching hospitals in Belfast must be more closely linked to the smaller hospitals providing acute services that would enable junior doctors to be allocated from a central pool in Belfast to any hospital in the Province when the need arises.
The community hospital concept has not been taken up and developed widely in Great Britain. This out-of-date concept, rejected on the mainland, should not be forced on the people of Northern Ireland. There is an opportunity for the rationalisation and modernisation of hospital provision for acute services that would attract increased support. There is overwhelming opposition from general practitioners, nurses, trade unionists, industry, elected representatives and the public as a whole. Alternative provision provides value for money and will have widespread support.
Will the Minister please further examine his Department's and the Northern health board's proposals? Has he considered the implications for the new Antrim hospital if patients are given the right to choose, which is

very good Conservative policy, and they decide to take the monetary value of their operation to a hospital other than Antrim? Or shall we continue to be lectured and dictated to by those who think that they know what is best for us and who are unwilling to listen to reason and to engage in constructive dialogue?
I hope that the Minister will again accept the detailed documentation from Moyle and retain it in his Department for further consideration in relation to all those areas that will be more than 15 miles away from acute services based on an Antrim hospital now satisfactorily served by existing east Antrim hospitals. I am sure that we all aim to achieve what is best in the provision of acute hospital services for the Northern board area and at the same time have value for money, co-operation and widespread acceptance.
For those reasons, I oppose the proposed closure of Smiley and Carrickfergus hospitals in my constituency and the planned run down of acute services in east Antrim.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I am sure that the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) regrets as much as the rest of us do the 20 seconds delay that he experienced a fortnight ago in coming to the House, which has resulted in the rest of us being here for the last 14 hours. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is in his place. I know that he has a close interest in the subject that we are discussing.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East rightly pointed out that I inherited the Antrim hospital proposals. They were far down the track when I arrived on the scene. I considered them carefully and, for reasons that I shall give the House, I decided that it was right to proceed with them. When I answered the questions of the hon. Members for Antrim, East and for Antrim, North, no and no, it was because the time had passed. The ship had left port, the rocket had left the launching pad, and, millions of pounds had been spent on the design project for this fine new hospital. It is now in the process of going to tender and it will be built. The question is, why is it to be built, and why is it to be built there?
As to why it is to be built, I accept that small, acute hospitals have had a remarkable history in Northern Ireland, particularly in the Northern board area. In the last century hospitals were built within one day's walking distance from where anybody lived in the Northern board area. They were run by dedicated surgeons who were capable of dealing with every aspect of surgical technology and surgical practice as it existed in those times.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is no longer true. On a recent television programme one of the councillors at Cushendall, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Antrim, North, said that he sat in his front room and looked out of the window and that if he ever had a coronary he could go up the road to the hospital. Unfortunately, if he went up the road to the hospital, when he got there he would find that no one was manning it and that the equipment there probably would not save his life. That is no reflection on the people. The technology just does not exist.
In the Northern board area we have to concentrate acute facilities in places of excellence that are properly manned and have the very best equipment and to which we


can attract the best staff. We must ensure that there are community hospitals to which people can go for geriatric care, for community care, to be attached to health centres or to have minor operations. All those facilities must be available so that people can go into acute care for a short time and then go back to their community hospitals.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Let us consider the example of Ballymena. At their own expense the people of Ballymena opened up a very valuable heart department. As the Minister knows, the people of Ballymena can walk to the hospital if they have heart trouble. The record of the Ballymena heart ward is outstanding. That will be taken to Antrim, away from Ballymena. Is it fair that the people who have paid for and helped to run the specialist heart ward at the Ballymena hospital should be robbed of it? The people of Antrim did not pay for it.

Mr. Needham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I have been to that coronary ward. There is nothing finer in terms of the dedication of the staff, the care and the equipment, but the hon. Gentleman must be the first to admit that the building is old and in an unsatisfactory condition. I believe that when those who work there see the facilities that will be produced in Antrim, they will welcome that opportunity. The hon. Gentleman asked how people would get there. The answer is that it is crucial that we have an ambulance service with all the right equipment to make sure that they get to Antrim as quickly as they possibly can.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East referred to the roads in Northern Ireland. I have some sympathy with the points that he raised, but we are building a dual carriageway to make sure that they will be able to get to hospital that much quicker.
I believe that we need a new acute hospital in the central and southern sectors of the Northern board. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), who is not here this morning, believes that it should be at Antrim, as do the friends of Antrim hospital and the Antrim council. The hon. Member for Antrim, North would prefer it to be at Ballymena and the hon. Member for Antrim, East would prefer it to be at Lame. Wherever we put it, it will not get universal approval. If one considers the long-term need for a major acute facility—and the Northern board has considered the matter very carefully—it has the delegated responsibility for such matters. It does not consist of my puppets, and I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Antrim, East will realise that. I know that the hon. Member for Antrim, North has been to the board and discussed the matters with the officers and the chairman and has had a very full briefing.
While I understand why, from a constituency point of view, the hon. Member for Antrim, North would prefer it to be in Ballymena and the hon. Member for Antrim, East would prefer it to be in Lame, I believe that the Northern Board has reached the right decision. I do not believe that we can continue with very small acute hospitals because we cannot staff them. There are already problems in the Southern board area, where large acute hospitals cannot adequately staff emergency units. In Downpatrick there are major problems with attracting and keeping staff because they want to work in major acute centres of excellence that will help them get on in their careers.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I know that the Minister does not want to mislead the House. No one knows the geography of Antrim better than the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and the Minister himself. He well knows that Ballymena is the middle. He said that Antrim was central, but it is not. It is the southern extremity. So why not put the hospital there? There was no opposition from Lame when the decision was made that the Waveney hospital was to be the central hospital. It was to have an acute service to provide the necessary balance. Now all the acute services are being taken away and concentrated in the northern periphery.

Mr. Needham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. We have debated it at length, mainly in the columns of the newspapers, and not, unfortunately, until this evening in the House. In view of the geography of the Northern board area and the potential of phases 2 and 3 that are to follow, the greenfield Antrim site is the most sensible place. We can get people from Lame and Ballymena there and look after them in the finest possible way.
The main points of the debate are Smiley and Carrickfergus, about which I have not yet made a decision. I have listened to the points made by the hon. Member for Antrim, East and I shall be in a position to come out with a decision early next week. I am confident that I have the information that I require to make that decision. I see no need for a public inquiry. I have taken into account the opposition to these closures. The hospitals may well be able to be closed and transfers take place to the Moyle. That will not affect the quality of service that the people there will get.
It is right to ensure that there are proper-sized units for obstetrics. We can go forward with Antrim and the rationalisation of acute care in the Northern board area. That will provide the constituents of the hon. Members for Antrim, East and for Antrim, North with a better and more professional service than they are receiving now.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Four o'clock on Friday morning.